Changes in Chlamydia Control Activities in Europe Between 2007 & 2012: A Cross-National Survey

In 2012, the levels of chlamydia control activities including primary prevention, effective case management with partner management and surveillance were assessed in 2012 across countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA), on initiative of the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) survey, and the findings were compared with those from a similar survey in 2007.

Experts in the 30 EU/EEA countries were invited to respond to an online questionnaire; 28 countries responded, of which 25 participated in both the 2007 and 2012 surveys. Analyses focused on 13 indicators of chlamydia prevention and control activities; countries were assigned to one of five categories of chlamydia control.

In 2012, more countries than in 2007 reported availability of national chlamydia case management guidelines (80% vs. 68%), opportunistic chlamydia testing (68% vs. 44%) and consistent use of nucleic acid amplification tests (64% vs. 36%). The number of countries reporting having a national sexually transmitted infection control strategy or a surveillance system for chlamydia did not change notably. In 2012, most countries (18/25, 72%) had implemented primary prevention activities and case management guidelines addressing partner management, compared with 44% (11/25) of countries in 2007.

Overall, chlamydia control activities in EU/EEA countries strengthened between 2007 and 2012. Several countries still need to develop essential chlamydia control activities, whereas others may strengthen implementation and monitoring of existing activities.

Below:  EU/EEA countries with a national strategy or plan about STI control in 2012. CT = chlamydia. UK situation based on England. Adapted from ECDC Report7

Below:  Map of Europe indicating the level of chlamydia control based on the countries’ accomplishments of key indicators assessed in the survey in 2012. UK situation based on England. Adapted from ECDC Report7

Full article at: http://goo.gl/nWGa1D

By: van den Broek IV1, Sfetcu O2, van der Sande MA3, Andersen B4, Herrmann B5, Ward H6, Götz HM7, Uusküla A8, Woodhall SC9, Redmond SM10, Amato-Gauci AJ2, Low N10, van Bergen JE11.

• 1Unit of Epidemiology and Surveillance, RIVM/Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands, Bilthoven, The Netherlands ingrid.van.den.broek@rivm.nl.
• 2European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
• 3Unit of Epidemiology and Surveillance, RIVM/Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands, Bilthoven, The Netherlands Julius Centre, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
• 4Department of Public Health, Randers Hospital, Skovlyvej, Randers, Denmark.
• 5Section of Clinical Bacteriology, Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
• 6Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, Norfolk Place, London, UK.
• 7Department of Infectious Disease Control, Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
• 8Department of Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
• 9HIV & STI Department, National Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England, London, UK.
• 10Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
• 11Unit of Epidemiology and Surveillance, RIVM/Centre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands, Bilthoven, The Netherlands Department of General Practice, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands STI AIDS Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.  

More at:  https://twitter.com/hiv_insight