Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2006

Open Access 01-12-2006 | Research article

Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatisraise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study

Authors: Rona Campbell, Nicola Mills, Emma Sanford, Anna Graham, Nicola Low, Tim J Peters, the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The advent of urine testing for Chlamydia trachomatis has raised the possibility of large-scale screening for this sexually transmitted infection, which is now the most common in the United Kingdom. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of an invitation to be screened for chlamydia and of receiving a negative result on levels of anxiety, depression and self-esteem.

Methods

19,773 men and women aged 16 to 39 years, selected at random from 27 general practices in two large city areas (Bristol and Birmingham) were invited by post to send home-collected urine samples or vulvo-vaginal swabs for chlamydia testing. Questionnaires enquiring about anxiety, depression and self-esteem were sent to random samples of those offered screening: one month before the dispatch of invitations; when participants returned samples; and after receiving a negative result.

Results

Home screening was associated with an overall reduction in anxiety scores. An invitation to participate did not increase anxiety levels. Anxiety scores in men were lower after receiving the invitation than at baseline. Amongst women anxiety was reduced after receipt of negative test results. Neither depression nor self-esteem scores were affected by screening.

Conclusion

Postal screening for chlamydia does not appear to have a negative impact on overall psychological well-being and can lead to a decrease in anxiety levels among respondents. There is, however, a clear difference between men and women in when this reduction occurs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
3.
go back to reference Health Protection Agency, SCIEH, ISD, National Public Health Service for Wales, CDSC Northern Ireland, and UASSG. Renewing the focus. HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United Kingdom in 2002. 2003, London: Health Protection Agency Health Protection Agency, SCIEH, ISD, National Public Health Service for Wales, CDSC Northern Ireland, and UASSG. Renewing the focus. HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United Kingdom in 2002. 2003, London: Health Protection Agency
4.
go back to reference LaMontagne DS, Fenton KA, Randall S, Anderson S, Carter P, on behalf of the National Chlamydia Screening Steering Group: Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2004, 80: 335-41. 10.1136/sti.2004.012856.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral LaMontagne DS, Fenton KA, Randall S, Anderson S, Carter P, on behalf of the National Chlamydia Screening Steering Group: Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2004, 80: 335-41. 10.1136/sti.2004.012856.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK: Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study. Br Med J. 1998, 317: 26-7.CrossRef Ostergaard L, Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK: Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study. Br Med J. 1998, 317: 26-7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, Van Bergen JEAM, Hoebe CJPA, De Zwar ONNO, Richardus JH, for the Pilot CT Study Group: Acceptability and consequences of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by home-based urine testing. Sex Transm Dis. 2005, 32: 557-562. 10.1097/01.olq.0000175416.15905.db.CrossRefPubMed Gotz HM, Veldhuijzen IK, Van Bergen JEAM, Hoebe CJPA, De Zwar ONNO, Richardus JH, for the Pilot CT Study Group: Acceptability and consequences of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by home-based urine testing. Sex Transm Dis. 2005, 32: 557-562. 10.1097/01.olq.0000175416.15905.db.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Dixon-Woods M, Stokes T, Young B, Phelps B, Windridge K, Shukla R: Choosing and using services for sexual health: a qualitative study of women's views. Sex Transm Infect. 2001, 77: 335-339. 10.1136/sti.77.5.335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dixon-Woods M, Stokes T, Young B, Phelps B, Windridge K, Shukla R: Choosing and using services for sexual health: a qualitative study of women's views. Sex Transm Infect. 2001, 77: 335-339. 10.1136/sti.77.5.335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Duncan B, Hart G, Scoular A, Bigrigg A: Qualitative analysis of psychosocial impact of diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: implications for screening. Br Med J. 2001, 322: 195-199.CrossRef Duncan B, Hart G, Scoular A, Bigrigg A: Qualitative analysis of psychosocial impact of diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: implications for screening. Br Med J. 2001, 322: 195-199.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference France C, Thomas K, Slack R, James N: Psychosocial impacts of chlamydia testing are important. Br Med J. 2001, 322: 1245-CrossRef France C, Thomas K, Slack R, James N: Psychosocial impacts of chlamydia testing are important. Br Med J. 2001, 322: 1245-CrossRef
10.
11.
go back to reference Eardley A, Elkind A: Breast screening among women over 65: what do they think of it?. J Public Health Med. 1991, 13: 172-177.PubMed Eardley A, Elkind A: Breast screening among women over 65: what do they think of it?. J Public Health Med. 1991, 13: 172-177.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Horner PJ, Roberts TE, Campbell R, Herring A, Skidmore S, Sanford E, Sterne JAC, Davey Smith G, Graham A, Huengsberg M, Ross J, Egger M, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies Group: The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design. Sex Transm Infect. 2004, 80: 342-348. 10.1136/sti.2003.006197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Horner PJ, Roberts TE, Campbell R, Herring A, Skidmore S, Sanford E, Sterne JAC, Davey Smith G, Graham A, Huengsberg M, Ross J, Egger M, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies Group: The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design. Sex Transm Infect. 2004, 80: 342-348. 10.1136/sti.2003.006197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983, 67: 361-370.CrossRefPubMed Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983, 67: 361-370.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Rosenberg M: Society and the Adolescent Self-image. 1989, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, reprint Rosenberg M: Society and the Adolescent Self-image. 1989, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, reprint
15.
go back to reference StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. 2001, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. 2001, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation
16.
go back to reference Liang KY, Zeger SL: Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986, 72: 13-22. 10.2307/2336267.CrossRef Liang KY, Zeger SL: Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986, 72: 13-22. 10.2307/2336267.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, MacCarthy A, Sterne JS, Holloway A, Patel R, Sanford E, Morcom A, Horner P, Davey Smith G, Skidmore S, Herring , Caul O, Hobbs R, Egger M: Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2005, 330: 14-19.CrossRef Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, MacCarthy A, Sterne JS, Holloway A, Patel R, Sanford E, Morcom A, Horner P, Davey Smith G, Skidmore S, Herring , Caul O, Hobbs R, Egger M: Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2005, 330: 14-19.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Low N, MacCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts T, Horner P, Skidmore S, Sterne JS, Sanford E, Ibrahim F, Holloway A, Patel R, Barton PM, Robinson SM, Mills N, Graham A, Herring A, Caul OE, Davey Smith G, Hobbs FDR, Egger M, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies Project group: Epidemiological, social, diagnostic, and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydia infection the Chlamydia Screening Studies project. Health Technol Assess. 2006, Low N, MacCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts T, Horner P, Skidmore S, Sterne JS, Sanford E, Ibrahim F, Holloway A, Patel R, Barton PM, Robinson SM, Mills N, Graham A, Herring A, Caul OE, Davey Smith G, Hobbs FDR, Egger M, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies Project group: Epidemiological, social, diagnostic, and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydia infection the Chlamydia Screening Studies project. Health Technol Assess. 2006,
19.
go back to reference Milburn K, MacAskill S: Cervical screening: continuing concerns in the 1990s. Health Educ J. 1994, 53: 201-213.CrossRef Milburn K, MacAskill S: Cervical screening: continuing concerns in the 1990s. Health Educ J. 1994, 53: 201-213.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Sutton S, Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J: Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995, 49: 413-418.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sutton S, Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J: Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995, 49: 413-418.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Bull A, Campbell M: Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 1991, 64: 510-515.CrossRefPubMed Bull A, Campbell M: Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 1991, 64: 510-515.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Walker LG, Cordiner CM, Gilbert FJ, Needham G, Deans HE, Affleck IR, Hood DB, Mathieson D, Ahsee AK, Eremin O: How distressing is attendance for routine breast screening?. Psychooncology. 1994, 3: 299-304.CrossRef Walker LG, Cordiner CM, Gilbert FJ, Needham G, Deans HE, Affleck IR, Hood DB, Mathieson D, Ahsee AK, Eremin O: How distressing is attendance for routine breast screening?. Psychooncology. 1994, 3: 299-304.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Peters TJ, Somerset M, Baxter K, Wilkinson C: Anxiety among women with mild dyskaryosis: a randomized trial of an educational intervention. Br J Gen Pract. 1999, 49: 348-352.PubMedPubMedCentral Peters TJ, Somerset M, Baxter K, Wilkinson C: Anxiety among women with mild dyskaryosis: a randomized trial of an educational intervention. Br J Gen Pract. 1999, 49: 348-352.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Reelick NF, de Haes WFM, Schuurman JH: Psychological side effects of the mass screening on cervical cancer. Soc Sci Med. 1984, 18: 1089-1093. 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90169-2.CrossRefPubMed Reelick NF, de Haes WFM, Schuurman JH: Psychological side effects of the mass screening on cervical cancer. Soc Sci Med. 1984, 18: 1089-1093. 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90169-2.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Bakker DA, Lightfoot NE, Steggles S, Jackson C: The experience and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998, 25: 115-121.PubMed Bakker DA, Lightfoot NE, Steggles S, Jackson C: The experience and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998, 25: 115-121.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Scaf-Klomp W, Sanderman R, van de Weil HBM, Otter R, van der Heuvel WJA: Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997, 51: 705-710.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Scaf-Klomp W, Sanderman R, van de Weil HBM, Otter R, van der Heuvel WJA: Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997, 51: 705-710.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Gram I, Slenker S: Cancer anxiety and attitudes towards mammography amongst screening attenders, non-attenders and women never invited. Am J Public Health. 1992, 82: 249-251.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gram I, Slenker S: Cancer anxiety and attitudes towards mammography amongst screening attenders, non-attenders and women never invited. Am J Public Health. 1992, 82: 249-251.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Somerset M, Peters TJ: Intervening to reduce anxiety for women with mild dyskaryosis: do we know what works and why?. J Adv Nurs. 1998, 28: 563-570. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00717.x.CrossRefPubMed Somerset M, Peters TJ: Intervening to reduce anxiety for women with mild dyskaryosis: do we know what works and why?. J Adv Nurs. 1998, 28: 563-570. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00717.x.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatisraise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study
Authors
Rona Campbell
Nicola Mills
Emma Sanford
Anna Graham
Nicola Low
Tim J Peters
the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group
Publication date
01-12-2006
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2006
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-106

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

BMC Public Health 1/2006 Go to the issue