ArticlePloS one2026
Young adults' perspectives on chlamydia-related subfertility and a potential predictive subfertility test: A mixed-methods study in the Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) infection control could be more effective if focused on morbidity- rather than prevalence reduction. A predictive test, identifying those at higher risk for chlamydia-subfertility, could be developed to enhance targeted chlamydia control. However, do young adults with a uterus (hereafter "young adults") want to know their subfertility risk?
methodsA sequential mixed methods study was conducted among young adults in the Netherlands to explore perspectives on chlamydia, subfertility, and a potential subfertility test. Five focus groups with Sexual Health Center (SHC) visitors were held to identify potential benefits, barriers, and requirements; results were analysed thematically and used to inform a questionnaire. This questionnaire was distributed online via SHCs and social media. Descriptive statistics and modified Poisson regression were used to assess benefits and barriers of learning one's subfertility risk.
resultsNineteen young adults participated in the focus groups, and the resulting themes informed the questionnaire. These included perceived benefits (mental preparation, anticipation, reassurance after a "no increased risk" result), perceived barriers (mental burden of an "increased risk" result, need for blood sampling), and requirements (accuracy, accessibility, follow-up). The questionnaire was completed by 426 participants (median age 22, IQR 20-24). High perceived susceptibility was reported by 11% for chlamydia and 23% for chlamydia‑related subfertility; perceived severity was high for chlamydia and chlamydia-related subfertility, 75% and 88%, respectively. Willingness to use a risk test was 78%. Relief after a "no increased risk" result was expected by 89%, while an increased‑risk result was expected to enhance preparedness (86%) and elicit worry (83%). Additional considerations included motivation for safer sex, negative effects on relationships, and questioning the value of knowing.
conclusionYoung adults are concerned about chlamydia‑related subfertility, resulting in high willingness to use a risk test. The expected benefits and barriers should be carefully considered in test development.
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.