ArticleSexually transmitted infections1999
Knowledge of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection and its consequences in people attending a genitourinary medicine clinic.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature.BMC public health · 2006Pooled it
- Increasing young adults' condom use intentions and behaviour through changing chlamydia risk and coping appraisals: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of efficacy.BMC public health · 2013Trial
- Young men's views toward the barriers and facilitators of Internet-based Chlamydia trachomatis screening: qualitative study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
- Knowledge of Chlamydia trachomatis among men and women approached to participate in community-based screening, Scotland, UK.BMC public health · 2010Article
- A study of young peoples' attitudes to opportunistic Chlamydia testing in UK general practice.Reproductive health · 2008Article
- Choosing and using services for sexual health: a qualitative study of women's views.Sexually transmitted infections · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess knowledge of Chlamydia trachomatis infections, with a comparison of knowledge of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.
methodsA cross sectional survey, by self completed questionnaire, of 200 subjects attending a genitourinary outpatient clinic.
resultsThe response rate was 82% (90 male and 73 female). 51% of men (60% of females) had heard of chlamydia. 65 (82%) were unaware of the potential consequences of infection. 66% were unaware that the disease could be asymptomatic. Significantly more men (77%) than women (60%) had heard of gonorrhoea. Most participants (68%-82%) knew little of the possible consequences of this infection, and only 26% were aware that it could be asymptomatic. Knowledge was higher regarding fertility topics. There was no correlation between knowledge and either age or socioeconomic status. However, greater knowledge was displayed by those who read health information leaflets always or often. For both men and women, the preferred source of health information was the doctor. Other popular sources were health information leaflets, women's magazines, and television.
conclusionsBarely half the participants had heard of chlamydia and gonorrhoea. Further knowledge of either infection was very poor. There are serious implications for public health. The reasons for this are unclear and require exploration before targeted health promotion. Doctors and the popular media are acceptable, and potentially effective, sources of information. Acquisition of knowledge is important, both to reduce sexual risk taking behaviour and its consequences, and to allow for informed consent for chlamydia screening programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.