Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings

S Sripida, Susan Logan, Alexander Allan Templeton, Hamish McKenzie, Alasdair George Sutherland, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Objectives: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of opportunistic Chlomydia trachomatis (CT) screening of asymptomatic men attending three different secondary healthcare settings and to investigate CT positivity in these settings. Methods: Men attending fracture, fertility and family planning (FP) clinics were invited to be screened by firstvoid urine and complete a questionnaire which collected demographic, sexual and behavioural characteristics, and their opinion about the screening process. Results: 1290 men were approached, with 80% participating. The number of men approached, number providing a satisfactory urine specimen and CT positivity rate (95% Cl were, respectively, n = 401, n = 206, 14.6% (10.4 to 20. 1) for the FP clinic, n = 505, n = 328, 1.2% (0.5 to 3.2) for the fracture clinic and n = 384, n = 319, 0.3% (0.1 to 1.8) for the fertility clinic. The highest rates of CT infection were found in men attending the FP clinics, aged between 20-24 years. Most of the Men from all three clinics felt that the setting (87.9%) and specimen (97.7%) were acceptable.

Conclusion: Opportunistic chlamydial screening of asymptomatic men in three secondary healthcare settings found high positivity rates, but low uptake rates in a FP setting compared with fertility and fracture clinics. Innovative and targeted intervention strategies are required to engage this high-risk group of men in screening.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)282-285
Number of pages4
JournalSexually Transmitted Infections
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2007


Dive into the research topics of 'Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this