↓ Skip to main content

Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Socioeconomic factors and other sources of variation in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2069-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Crichton, Matthew Hickman, Rona Campbell, Harriet Batista-Ferrer, John Macleod

Abstract

The success of chlamydia screening programmes relies on their ability to effectively target those with greatest need. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds may be at greater need for chlamydia screening, but existing evidence on the variation of prevalence with social position is inconclusive. We carried out a systematic review to examine variation in chlamydia prevalence in populations and possible sources of this variation. Studies were eligible if they reported chlamydia prevalence derived from population-based samples that included young people aged 15-24 years from Europe, North America or Australia. Systematic searches of the following databases were undertaken from their inception to November 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and PsychINFO. There were no restrictions by language or publication date. Independent screening for eligibility and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was further investigated using meta-regression techniques. Of 1248 unique titles and abstracts and 263 potentially relevant full texts, 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. There was relatively strong evidence that disadvantaged young people had an increased risk of having a chlamydia infection across multiple measures of disadvantage, including lower educational attainment (OR 1.94, 95 % CI: 1.52 to 2.47), lower occupational class (OR 1.49, 95 % CI: 1.07 to 2.08) and residence in deprived areas (OR 1.76, 95 % CI: 1.15 to 2.71) with an overall OR of 1.66 (95 % CI: 1.37 to 2.02). Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with chlamydia infection in both men and women. There was weaker evidence that prevalence estimates also varied by gender and age. This review provides evidence of a consistent association between socioeconomic disadvantage and higher risk of Chlamydia infection. This association may reflect a number of factors including social variation in engagement with Chlamydia control programmes. Chlamydia screening could therefore reduce or increase health inequalities, depending on service provision and uptake by different socioeconomic groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 26 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,837,920
of 21,615,008 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,244
of 14,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,276
of 248,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,615,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them