Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch BriefsA

Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia

Allison Ursu, Ananda Sen and Mack Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine July 2015, 13 (4) 361-363; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1811
Allison Ursu
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: awessel@med.umich.edu
Ananda Sen
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
2Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mack Ruffin
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The highest prevalence of chlamydia infection in the United States is among people aged 15 to 24 years. We assessed the impact of not doing routine cervical cancer screening on the rates of chlamydia screening in women aged 15 to 21 years. We classified visits to family medicine ambulatory clinics according to their timing relative to the 2009 guideline change that led to more restrictive cervical cancer screening. Women had higher odds of being screened for chlamydia before vs after the guideline change (odds ratio = 13.97; 95% CI, 9.17–21.29; P <.001). Chlamydia and cervical cancer screening need to be uncoupled and new screening opportunities should be identified.

  • chlamydia screening
  • cervical cancer screening
  • sexually transmitted infection screening
  • Papanicolaou test
  • primary care

INTRODUCTION

There are an estimated 2.8 million new chlamydia infections annually in the United States.1 The highest rates of infection are among females aged 15 to 24 years.1 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends chlamydia screening for sexually active women aged younger than 24 years.2 According to data from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set, the national chlamydia screening rate in 2008 was 44.7%.3 Clinicians who are comfortable discussing sexually transmitted infections, female, younger, and obstetrician-gynecologists are more likely to order sexually transmitted infection screening.4

In 2009, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended beginning cervical cancer screening at age 21.5 Previously, they had recommended beginning screening 3 years after first sexual intercourse or by age 21, whichever occurred first.6 Before 2009, chlamydia screening was more likely to be ordered if a Papanicolaou test was being done,7 but no published data exist after that year. We assessed whether the change in cervical cancer screening guidelines altered rates of chlamydia screening among young women in primary care clinics.

METHODS

A patient population database was used to identify visits by females aged 15 to 21 years to 5 family medicine ambulatory clinics at the University of Michigan. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study comparing women who made visits between January 1, 2008, and February 28, 2009 (ie, before the guideline change) with women who made visits between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2012 (ie, after the guideline change). We excluded visits where Papanicolaou and chlamydia testing were likely diagnostic rather than screening, based on the billing diagnosis.

Our primary outcome was completed chlamydia screening. We measured patient age, clinic site, number of visits per patient during the time period, clinician type, and Papanicolaou test completion. Clinician type refers to resident or faculty status; fellows were considered faculty.

We used logistic regression analysis to estimate the odds ratio associated with possible predictors of chlamydia and cervical cancer screening. The data were analyzed by group before and after the guideline change, as well as a single group. This approach conformed to a repeated cross-sectional design, with separate eligible groups of women analyzed at each time point. A logistic regression analysis was carried out with Papanicolaou screening as outcome and time period (before vs after guideline change) as primary covariate, controlling for age, clinician type (faculty or resident), and clinic site. A similar logistic regression model was fit with chlamydia screening as the dichotomous outcome variable, and time period as the covariate of main interest, controlling for potential confounding by age, number of visits in the 14-month time period, clinic site, clinician type, and completion of Papanicolaou testing. We used Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit tests to perform model diagnostics. SPSS Statistics 21 (IBM Corp) was used for the analysis.7

This study was exempted from ethical review by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 3,472 female patients aged 15 to 21 who made a total of 9,852 visits. Their characteristics, as well as their total number of Papanicolaou and chlamydia tests, are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Characteristics of Study Sample

The unadjusted proportion of patients having a Papanicolaou test was significantly higher (P <.001) before the guideline change (394/1,626 = 24.2%) than after (73/1,846 = 3.9%). Adjusting for age, clinician type, and clinic site, the odds of having this test remained sharply higher before the guideline change (odds ratio = 7.13; 95% CI, 5.38–9.43; P <.001). Similarly, the odds of having a chlamydia screen were significantly higher before vs after the guideline change (odds ratio = 13.97; 95% CI, 9.17–21.29; P <.001). Before the guideline change, 61.9% (311/502) of the chlamydia screens were concurrent with Papanicolaou testing, but after the guideline change, only 10.8% (4/37) were (Table 1). The main results are summarized in Table 2, for both groups combined and stratified by group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Predictors of Chlamydia Screening

DISCUSSION

After the change in cervical cancer screening guidelines in 2009, there was a significant decrease in chlamydia screening for females aged 15 to 21 years without a decrease in office visits, which others have suggested may lead to less screening.7 This unintended decrease occurred despite recommendations promoting chlamydia screening and access to noninvasive testing. Our findings are consistent with past research8 and add to what is known about predictors of chlamydia screening.

This study suggests that we cannot rely on pelvic examinations or cervical cancer screenings as opportunities for chlamydia screening as has been suggested in the past.9 Chlamydia screening needs to be unlinked from the pelvic examination and cervical cancer screening. The American College of Physicians recently recommended against performing a screening pelvic examination in nonpregnant, asymptomatic women.10 This recommendation may affect chlamydia screening rates in a way similar to that of the change in cervical cancer guidelines.

This study had several limitations. It was conducted in a single department at a single academic center, we did not have access to patient demographic information or clinician sex, and the data contained only completed tests, not all the tests that were ordered.

We need to identify new opportunities for screening and put into place standard workflows that will maximize screening in this population. Current efforts to improve rates of chlamydia screening are promising,11 but more needs to be done to improve this quality measure.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Lee A. Green, MD, MPH of the University of Alberta whose aid in retrieving the data for this project was invaluable.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Previous presentations: Michigan Family Medicine Research Day, May 22, 2014, Cleary University, Howell, Michigan; Department of Family Medicine Research Day, May 15, 2014, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

  • Received for publication November 20, 2014.
  • Revision received April 6, 2015.
  • Accepted for publication April 21, 2015.
  • © 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
  2. ↵
    1. LeFevre ML
    ; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(12):902–910.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chlamydia Screening Percentages Reported by Commercial and Medicaid Plans by State and Year. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
  4. ↵
    1. Skala SL,
    2. Secura GM,
    3. Peipert JF
    . Factors associated with screening for sexually transmitted infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(4):324.e1–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1409–1420.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Adolescent Health Care. ACOG Committee Opinion #300: Cervical cancer screening in adolescents. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4): 885–889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Tao G,
    2. Hoover KW,
    3. Kent CK
    . 2009 cervical cytology guidelines and chlamydia testing among sexually active young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1319–1323.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows [computer program]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2012.
  9. ↵
    1. Oakeshott P,
    2. Kerry S,
    3. Hay S,
    4. Hay P
    . Opportunistic screening for chlamydial infection at time of cervical smear testing in general practice: prevalence study. BMJ. 1998;316(7128):351–352.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Humphrey LL,
    3. Harris R,
    4. Starkey M,
    5. Denberg TD
    ; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Screening pelvic examination in adult women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(1):67–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kettinger LD
    . A practice improvement intervention increases chlamydia screening among young women at a women’s health practice. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2013;42(1):81–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 13 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 13 (4)
Vol. 13, Issue 4
July/August 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia
Allison Ursu, Ananda Sen, Mack Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2015, 13 (4) 361-363; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1811

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia
Allison Ursu, Ananda Sen, Mack Ruffin
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2015, 13 (4) 361-363; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1811
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Increasing Vaginal Chlamydia Trachomatis Testing in Adolescent and Young Adults
  • A potential link between tuberculosis and lung cancer through non-coding RNAs
  • The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing
  • In This Issue: Views from Above and Below
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Characteristics of Family Physicians Practicing Collaboratively With Behavioral Health Professionals
  • Declining Comprehensiveness of Services Delivered by Canadian Family Physicians Is Not Driven by Early-Career Physicians
  • Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Assessing Tobacco Status in Community Health Centers
Show more Research Briefs

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Access

Keywords

  • chlamydia screening
  • cervical cancer screening
  • sexually transmitted infection screening
  • Papanicolaou test
  • primary care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine