4.6 Article

Urine-based testing for Chlamydia trachomatis among young adults in a population-based survey in Croatia: Feasibility and prevalence

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-230

关键词

-

资金

  1. Croatian Ministry for Science, Education and Sports
  2. UNDP Office in Croatia
  3. pharmaceutical company Pliva

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We assessed the feasibility of collecting urine samples for testing on genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a population-based survey, and prevalence of this infection among young people aged 18-25 in Croatia. In Croatia, as in the other countries of Eastern Europe, there is a lack of data on prevalence of C trachomatis in the general population, including young adults. Methods: We sampled participants using a nationally representative, multi-stage stratified probability sample of young men and women. Detection of C trachomatis DNA in urine samples was performed by using a real-time PCR assay COBAS (R) TaqMan (R) CT Test, v2.0. Results: Overall, 1005 young adults participated in the behavioural part of the survey, and 27.9% men and 37.5% women who were sexually experienced agreed to provide urine samples for testing on C trachomatis. Using multivariate analysis, women were significantly more likely to provide urine samples than men (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.06) as were those who reported no condom use at last intercourse (aOR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.44-2.62). Prevalence of C trachomatis infection among those who were sexually experienced was 7.3% in men and 5.3% in women. Conclusions: Population-based surveys that use probabilistic sampling are a feasible way to obtain population estimates of C trachomatis prevalence among young adults in Croatia, but it is challenging to obtain an adequate response rate. The prevalence of C trachomatis among young adults in Croatia found in this study was higher than that found in other European countries with similar survey response rates.

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

4.6
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