It matters what you measure: A systematic literature review examining whether young people in poorer socioeconomic circumstances are more at risk of chlamydia

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 175-180

  Sheringham, Jessica ^a   Mann, Sue ^b   Simms, Ian ^c   Stafford, Mai ^a   Hart, Graham J ^d   Raine, Rosalind ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d HIV   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHLAMYDIASIS; HUMAN; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SEXUAL HEALTH; SOCIAL STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

AUSTRALIA; EUROPE; HUMANS; LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH AMERICA; PREVALENCE; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84874618787     PISSN: 13684973     EISSN: 14723263     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050223     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections. Sexually Transmitted Infections Annual Data. London: Health Protection Agency, 2012. http://www.hpa.org.uk (accessed 26 Aug 2010).
2. Land JA, van Bergen JE, Morre SA, et al. Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16:189-204.
3. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. ECDC Guidance: Chlamydia Control in Europe. 2009. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. www.ecdc.europa.eu (accessed 27 Jul 2012).
4. Adams EJ, Charlett A, Edmunds WJ, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and analysis of prevalence studies. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80:354-62.
5. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. National chlamydia screening website. London: National Chlamydia Screening Programme, 2010. http://www.chlamydiascreening.nhs.uk (accessed 30 Mar 2012).
6. Evenden D, Harper PR, Brailsford SC, et al. Improving the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia screening with targeted screening strategies J Oper Res Soc 2006; 57:1400-12.
7. Stein CR, Kaufman JS, Ford CA, et al. Screening young adults for prevalent chlamydial infection in community settings. Ann Epidemogy 2008; 18:560-71.
8. Götz HM, Van Bergen JEAM, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:24-30.
9. van Bergen J, Götz HM, Richardus JH, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:17-23.
10. van den Broek IVF, Brouwers EEHG, Götz HM, et al. Systematic selection of screening participants by risk score in a chlamydia screening programme is feasible and effective. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:205-11.
11. Navarro C, Jolly A, Nair R, et al. Risk factors for genital chlamydial infection. Can J Infect Dis 2002; 13:195-207.
12. Bartley M. Measuring socio-economic position. In: Bartley M, ed. Health Inequality: An Introduction to Theories, Concepts and Methods. Cambridge: Polity Press 2004:22-35.
13. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36:666-76.
14. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: a Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006.
15. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). Quality and relevance appraisal. London: EPPI-Centre, 2010. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk (accessed 19 Oct 2009).
16. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology checklist 3: cohort studies. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 2004. http://www.sign.ac.uk (accessed 31 Jan 2009).
17. Goulet V, de Barbeyrac B, Raherison S, et al. Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis: results from the first national population-based survey in France. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86:263-70.
18. Asbel LE, Newbern EC, Salmon M, et al. School-based screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among Philadelphia public high school students. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:614-20.
19. Vuylsteke B, Vandenbruaene M, Vandenbulcke P, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence and sexual behaviour among female adolescents in Belgium. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75:152-5.
20. Datta SD, Sternberg M, Johnson RE, et al. Gonorrhea and chlamydia in the United States among persons 14 to 39 years of age, 1999 to 2002. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:89-96.
21. Fenton KA, Korovessis C, Johnson AM, et al. Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet 2001; 358:1851-4.
22. McCadden A, Fenton KA, McManus S, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis testing in the second British national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles: respondent uptake and treatment outcomes. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32:387-94.
23. Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, et al. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. BMJ 2005; 330:940.
24. Stovel K, Kreager D, Moreno M. The social dimensions of adolescent sexuality. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008.
25. Sheringham J, Simms I, Riha J, et al. Will chlamydia screening reach young people in deprived areas in England? Baseline analysis of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme delivery in 2008. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38:677-84.
26. Office for National Statistics. Labour Market Statistics 36. Newport: Office for National Statistics, 2010. http://www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 31 Dec 2010).
27. Krieger N, Waterman PD, Chen JT, et al. Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence: geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measuresdthe public health disparities geocoding project (US). Public Health Rep 2003; 118:240-60.
28. Bush KR, Henderson EA, Dunn J, et al. Mapping the core: chlamydia and gonorrhea infections in Calgary, Alberta. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:291-7.
29. Klovstad H, Aavitsland P. Chlamydia trachomatis infections in Norway, 1986 to 2006, surveillance data. Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:17-21.
30. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. Systematic reviews of observational studies. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:209-83.