Chlamydia retesting remains low among young women in Australia: an observational study using sentinel surveillance data, 2018–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chlamydia remains the most notified bacterial sexually transmissible infection in Australia with guidelines recommending testing for re-infection at 3months post treatment. This paper aimed to determine chlamydia retesting and repeat positivity rates within 2-4months among young women in Australia, and to evaluate what factors increase or decrease the likelihood of retesting. METHODS: Chlamydia retesting rates among 16-29-year-old women were analysed from Australian Collaboration for Coordinated Enhanced Sentinel Surveillance of sexually transmissible infection and bloodborne virus (ACCESS) sentinel surveillance data (n =62 sites). Among women with at least one positive test between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2022, retesting counts and proportions within 2-4months were calculated. Logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with retesting within 2-4months. RESULTS: Among 8758 women who were positive before 31 August 2022 to allow time for follow up, 1423 (16.2%) were retested within 2-4months, of whom 179 (12.6%) tested positive. The odds of retesting within 2-4months were 25% lower if tested in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-9) pandemic year (2020-2022) (aOR=0.75; 95% CI 0.59-0.95). Among 9140 women with a positive test before 30 November 2022, 397 (4.3%) were retested too early (within 7days to 1month) and 81 (20.4%) of those were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Chlamydia retesting rates remain low with around a sixth of women retested within 2-4months in line with guidelines. Re-infection is common with around one in eight retesting positive. An increase in retesting is required to reduce the risk of reproductive complications and onward transmission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".