4.1 Article

Risk behaviour, healthcare access and prevalence of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in a population-based sample of adults in Barbados

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 192-194

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2007.028126

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of urogenital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in people 18 to 35 years of age in Barbados, and to examine factors associated with infection. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of randomly selected people from the voters' register of one electoral district and the collection of urine samples for testing by PCR. Results: The response rate was 82%; 408 people (195 males and 213 females) completed a questionnaire and had their urine collected. 397 urine samples were satisfactorily tested. Prevalence of C trachomatis urogenital infection was 11.3% (95% CI +/- 2.9) and N gonorrhoeae 1.8% (95% CI +/- 1.2) with 12.6% (95% CI +/- 3.1) having either or both infections. The difference in prevalence by gender was not significant. Multivariate logistic regression showed that prevalence of C trachomatis and/or N gonorrhoeae decreased with increasing age (per year OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96, p=0.001), and decreasing time (<= 6 months vs >6 months) since last medical consultation (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88, p=0.02). Most (76%) infected people were asymptomatic. Condom use at last intercourse with a partner not being lived with was not protective (reported by 52%, p=0.617). The usual source of health care was evenly distributed between the public and private sectors and was not associated with infection. Only 30% of people had ever heard of chlamydia, whereas 92% were aware of gonorrhoea. Conclusions: Asymptomatic infection with C trachomatis is an important reservoir of infection, which will remain undetected unless physicians and young people are made aware of this and screening is introduced.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据