3.8 Article

Prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis among women of reproductive age attending outpatient clinic at Kisumu County Referral Hospital, Kenya, 2021

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN AFRICA
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PAGEPRESS PUBL
DOI: 10.4081/jphia.2022.2063

关键词

Chlamydia Rapid Diagnostic Test; Sexually-active women; Kenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women in Kenya. The results showed that the infection rate was within previous estimates, and risk factors for infection included multiple sexual partners, marital status, education level, and history of STI. The study calls for enhanced education of patients and communities about genital Chlamydia infection.
Background. Chlamydia trachomatis is a common a sexually transmit-ted infections (STI). Asymptomatic Chlamydia is undetectable because it is asymptomatic. In Kenyan women ages 18 to 49, the disease is poorly understood.Methods. This cross-sectional study was conducted at Kisumu County Referral Hospital, Kenya. 385 women consented and completed the electronic questionnaire. The women then provided vaginal swab sam-ples which were tested for Chlamydia trachomatis using Chlamydia rapid diagnostic test kit.Results. A total of 29 (7.5%) patients tested positive and were given medication. 65.2% of 385 participants were 18-25, with 5.7% preva-lence. Women preferred self vaginal swab collection over health worker collection (0.3%). Multiple sexual partners, coinfection with other STIs, and upper tract infections are linked to genital Chlamydia. 92% of participants didn't know Chlamydia's effects. Conclusions. The study's prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachoma-tis was within previous estimates. Populations and screening methods vary. Patient and community education about genital Chlamydia infec-tion is needed. Multiple sexual partners, marital status, education, and STI history are risk factors. Most women preferred self vaginal swab collection.

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

3.8
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