Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing

Michelle S. Naimer, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Deepit Bhatia, Rahim Moineddin, Michael Whelan, Michael A. Campitelli, Liane Macdonald, Aisha Lofters, Ashleigh Tuite, Tali Bogler, Joanne A. Permaul and Warren J. McIsaac
The Annals of Family Medicine July 2017, 15 (4) 329-334; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2097
Michelle S. Naimer
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada
MD, MHSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: michelle.naimer@sinaihealthsystem.ca jeff.kwong@utoronto.ca
Jeffrey C. Kwong
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
4Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada
6University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: michelle.naimer@sinaihealthsystem.ca jeff.kwong@utoronto.ca
Deepit Bhatia
3Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rahim Moineddin
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Whelan
4Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael A. Campitelli
3Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liane Macdonald
4Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada
7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aisha Lofters
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
5Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashleigh Tuite
7Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
MSc, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tali Bogler
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
8St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanne A. Permaul
2Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Warren J. McIsaac
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Observed and fitted rates of quarterly Pap testing, chlamydia testing, and reported chlamydia rates.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Study Population and Rates per 1,000 People of Pap Testing, Chlamydia Testing, and Reported Chlamydia Incidence in 2011, by Sex and Age-group

    PopulationPap TestingChlamydia TestingChlamydia Incidence
    Females
    15–19 years426,446355.9207.115.2
    20–24 years461,607898.3393.919.3
    25–29 years465,3991,051.6351.38.4
    Males
    15–19 years446,118n/a31.73.8
    20–24 years483,861n/a83.69.9
    25–29 years467,943n/a75.96.2
    • Pap=Papanicolaou.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Absolute and Relative Changes in Quarterly Rates (per 1,000 people) of Pap Testing, Chlamydia Testing, and Reported Chlamydia Incidence, Comparing Outcomes in the Latest Quarter Before Guideline Change (Feb–Apr 2012) to the Quarters 1 Year and 2 Years After the Guideline Change (May–Jul 2013 and 2014, Respectively)

    Age groups, yAbsolute Change per 1,000 People After 1 Year (95% CI)Relative Change After 1 Year, % (95% CI)Absolute Change per 1,000 People After 2 Years (95% CI)Relative Change After 2 Years, % (95% CI)
    Pap testing, females
    15–19βˆ’61.5 (βˆ’71.2 to βˆ’51.8)βˆ’74.2 (βˆ’83.2 to βˆ’65.2)βˆ’77.5 (βˆ’90.2 to βˆ’64.8)βˆ’93.5 (βˆ’102.8 to βˆ’84.1)
    20–24βˆ’98.2 (βˆ’116.9 to βˆ’79.4)βˆ’45.3 (βˆ’52.4 to βˆ’38.3)βˆ’131.2 (βˆ’156.2 to βˆ’107.8)βˆ’61.0 (βˆ’69.1 to βˆ’52.9)
    25–29βˆ’106.5 (βˆ’123.7 to βˆ’89.2)βˆ’41.4 (βˆ’47.0 to βˆ’35.9)βˆ’146.3 (βˆ’168.4 to βˆ’124.2)βˆ’57.0 (βˆ’63.3 to βˆ’50.6)
    Chlamydia testing, females
    15–19βˆ’11.4 (βˆ’14.9 to βˆ’8.0)βˆ’22.2 (βˆ’28.3 to βˆ’16.1)βˆ’13.1 (βˆ’17.3 to βˆ’8.9)βˆ’25.5 (βˆ’32.7 to βˆ’18.2)
    20–24βˆ’16.6 (βˆ’22.9 to βˆ’10.3)βˆ’16.5 (βˆ’22.3 to βˆ’10.7)βˆ’17.8 (βˆ’25.5 to βˆ’10.1)βˆ’17.7 (βˆ’24.7 to βˆ’10.7)
    25–29βˆ’14.4 (βˆ’20.6 to βˆ’8.3)βˆ’15.9 (βˆ’22.1 to βˆ’9.6)βˆ’14.3 (βˆ’21.3 to βˆ’7.3)βˆ’15.7 (βˆ’22.8 to βˆ’8.6)
    Chlamydia testing, males
    15–19βˆ’0.3 (βˆ’1.1 to 0.5)βˆ’3.4 (βˆ’12.7 to 5.9)0.1 (βˆ’0.7 to 0.8)1.1 (βˆ’7.7 to 10.0)
    20–240.3 (βˆ’0.9 to 1.4)1.3 (βˆ’3.8 to 6.4)1.6 (0.3 to 2.9)7.1 (1.2 to 12.9)
    25–290.6 (βˆ’0.5 to 1.8)3.0 (βˆ’2.5 to 8.5)2.2 (0.9 to 3.4)10.5 (4.1 to 16.9)
    Reported chlamydia incidence, females
    15–19βˆ’0.5 (βˆ’0.9 to βˆ’0.0)βˆ’12.2 (βˆ’23.0 to βˆ’1.5)βˆ’0.6 (βˆ’1.1 to βˆ’0.1)βˆ’16.8 (βˆ’29.5 to βˆ’4.1)
    20–24βˆ’0.6 (βˆ’1.1 to βˆ’0.2)βˆ’12.6 (βˆ’20.8 to βˆ’4.5)βˆ’0.7 (βˆ’1.2 to 0.2)βˆ’14.4 (βˆ’23.4 to βˆ’5.4)
    25–29βˆ’0.2 (βˆ’0.5 to 0.1)βˆ’9.3 (βˆ’23.6 to 5.1)βˆ’0.2 (βˆ’0.5 to 0.1)βˆ’8.0 (βˆ’21.2 to 5.3)
    Reported chlamydia incidence, males
    15–19βˆ’0.1 (βˆ’0.2 to 0.1)βˆ’7.2 (βˆ’19.0 to 4.6)βˆ’0.1 (βˆ’0.2 to 0.0)βˆ’8.4 (βˆ’21.0 to 4.1)
    20–24βˆ’0.1 (βˆ’0.4 to 0.1)βˆ’5.1 (βˆ’14.3 to 4.0)βˆ’0.1 (βˆ’0.4 to 0.1)βˆ’5.1 (βˆ’15.7 to 5.6)
    25–29βˆ’0.1 (βˆ’0.3 to 0.1)βˆ’4.0 (βˆ’15.1 to 7.1)0.0 (βˆ’0.2 to 0.2)0.9 (βˆ’9.9 to 11.6)
    • Pap=Papanicolaou.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendix and Tables

    Supplemental Appendix & Tables

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendix & Tables - PDF file
  • The Article in Brief

    The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing

    Michelle S. Naimer , and colleagues

    Background Screening for chlamydia, the most commonly diagnosed bacterial sexually transmitted infection worldwide, is often conducted with cervical cancer screening. Using population-based physician billing claims data and public health surveillance data, researchers in Ontario, Canada assessed the population-level impacts of new cervical cancer screening guidelines that recommend less frequent screening and older age of screening initiation.

    What This Study Found The 2012 cervical cancer screening guideline change is associated with reduced testing for cervical cancer and chlamydia and reduced identification of chlamydia cases in young women. Researchers found that Pap testing declined in all age groups following the guideline release, with the greatest relative reductions observed for females aged 15 to 19 years. The guideline change was also followed by a decrease in chlamydia testing in females aged 15 to 29 years. The largest reduction was observed in the 15- to 19-years age-group, in whom cervical cancer screening is no longer recommended, suggesting that reduced chlamydia testing may have been an unintended consequence of the guideline change. Reduced chlamydia testing coincided with a reduction in reported chlamydia incidence in females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years. In contrast, there were small increases in chlamydia testing in males aged 20 to 24 years and 25 to 29 years two years after the guideline change. Incidence rates were unchanged for males.

    Implications

    • The authors call for separating screening recommendations for sexually transmitted infections from recommendations for cervical cancer and highlight the need to promote chlamydia screening strategies for females that can be adopted into routine clinical care.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (4)
Vol. 15, Issue 4
July/August 2017
  • 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.
The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing
(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.
5 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing
Michelle S. Naimer, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Deepit Bhatia, Rahim Moineddin, Michael Whelan, Michael A. Campitelli, Liane Macdonald, Aisha Lofters, Ashleigh Tuite, Tali Bogler, Joanne A. Permaul, Warren J. McIsaac
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2017, 15 (4) 329-334; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2097

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing
Michelle S. Naimer, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Deepit Bhatia, Rahim Moineddin, Michael Whelan, Michael A. Campitelli, Liane Macdonald, Aisha Lofters, Ashleigh Tuite, Tali Bogler, Joanne A. Permaul, Warren J. McIsaac
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2017, 15 (4) 329-334; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2097
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Are we ready for human papillomavirus testing?: Assessment of patient knowledge of and preferences for cervical cancer screening in Ontario
  • The pandemic and cervical cancer screening: Is it finally time to adopt HPV self-swabbing tests in Canada?
  • La pandemie et le depistage du cancer du col: Est-ce enfin le temps dadopter les tests dautoprelevement pour la detection du VPH au Canada?
  • Educational implications of changing the guidelines for the digital rectal examination
  • Repercussions de la modification des lignes directrices pour lexamen rectal digital sur la formation des etudiants
  • In This Issue: Trends, Prescribing, Deprescribing
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
  • Convenience or Continuity: When Are Patients Willing to Wait to See Their Own Doctor?
  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the β€œAbout Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Women's health
  • Other topics:
    • Clinical practice guidelines

Keywords

  • chlamydia
  • cervical cancer
  • screening
  • clinical practice guidelines

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

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

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine