Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Jul 30:15:729.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2069-7.

Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Joanna Crichton  1 , Matthew Hickman  2 , Rona Campbell  3 , Harriet Batista-Ferrer  4 , John Macleod  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Joanna Crichton et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: The success of chlamydia screening programmes relies on their ability to effectively target those with greatest need. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds may be at greater need for chlamydia screening, but existing evidence on the variation of prevalence with social position is inconclusive. We carried out a systematic review to examine variation in chlamydia prevalence in populations and possible sources of this variation.

Methods: Studies were eligible if they reported chlamydia prevalence derived from population-based samples that included young people aged 15-24 years from Europe, North America or Australia. Systematic searches of the following databases were undertaken from their inception to November 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and PsychINFO. There were no restrictions by language or publication date. Independent screening for eligibility and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was further investigated using meta-regression techniques.

Results: Of 1248 unique titles and abstracts and 263 potentially relevant full texts, 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. There was relatively strong evidence that disadvantaged young people had an increased risk of having a chlamydia infection across multiple measures of disadvantage, including lower educational attainment (OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.52 to 2.47), lower occupational class (OR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.08) and residence in deprived areas (OR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.71) with an overall OR of 1.66 (95% CI: 1.37 to 2.02). Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with chlamydia infection in both men and women. There was weaker evidence that prevalence estimates also varied by gender and age.

Conclusions: This review provides evidence of a consistent association between socioeconomic disadvantage and higher risk of Chlamydia infection. This association may reflect a number of factors including social variation in engagement with Chlamydia control programmes. Chlamydia screening could therefore reduce or increase health inequalities, depending on service provision and uptake by different socioeconomic groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of records identified, included and excluded
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Odds ratio for chlamydia infection by socioeconomic position measures
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Turner KME, Adams EJ, LaMontagne DS, Emmett L, Baster K, Edmunds WJ. Modelling the effectiveness of chlamydia screening in England. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82(6):496–502. doi: 10.1136/sti.2005.019067. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Chlamydia Screening Programme: Public Health Outcomes Framework: Annual Chlamydia Diagnosis Rate (15–24 year olds) Frequently Asked Questions, Revised May 2013. www.chlamydiascreening.nhs.uk/ps/resources/Annual_Chlamydia_Diagnosis_Ra.... Accessed 27 July 2015.
    1. Evenden D, Harper PR, Brailsford SC, Harindra V. Improving the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia screening with targeted screening strategies. J Oper Res Soc. 2006;57(12):1400–12. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602134. - DOI
    1. Stein CR, Kaufman JS, Ford CA, Leone PA, Feldblum PJ, Miller WC. Screening Young Adults for Prevalent Chlamydial Infection in Community Settings. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18(7):560–71. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.03.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gotz HM, van Bergen JE, Veldhuijzen IK, Broer J, Hoebe CJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81(1):24–30. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.010181. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types