| Autor: |
Kounali DZ; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School,Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 5BN,UK., Welton NJ; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School,Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 5BN,UK., Soldan K; National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions, University of Bristol,Bristol,UK., Woodhall SC; Blood Safety, Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV Division,Public Health England, London, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ,UK., Dunbar JK; Blood Safety, Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV Division,Public Health England, London, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ,UK., Migchelsen SJ; Blood Safety, Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV Division,Public Health England, London, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ,UK., Mercer CH; Institute for Global Health, University College London, Mortimer Market Centre,London, WC1E 6JB,UK., Horner P; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School,Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 5BN,UK., Ades AE; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School,Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 5BN,UK. |
| Abstrakt: |
We evaluate the utility of the National Surveys of Attitudes and Sexual Lifestyles (Natsal) undertaken in 2000 and 2010, before and after the introduction of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, as an evidence source for estimating the change in prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) in England, Scotland and Wales. Both the 2000 and 2010 surveys tested urine samples for CT by Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs). We examined the sources of uncertainty in estimates of CT prevalence change, including sample size and adjustments for test sensitivity and specificity, survey non-response and informative non-response. In 2000, the unadjusted CT prevalence was 4.22% in women aged 18-24 years; in 2010, CT prevalence was 3.92%, a non-significant absolute difference of 0.30 percentage points (95% credible interval -2.8 to 2.0). In addition to uncertainty due to small sample size, estimates were sensitive to specificity, survey non-response or informative non-response, such that plausible changes in any one of these would be enough to either reverse or double any likely change in prevalence. Alternative ways of monitoring changes in CT incidence and prevalence over time are discussed. |
