PREVALENCE TRENDS IN CHLAMYDIAL INFECTIONS AMONG YOUNG WOMEN ENTERING THE NATIONAL JOB TRAINING PROGRAM

After reviewing abstracts obtained from a literature search of disease topics answer the questions below. 

1. PREVALENCE TRENDS IN CHLAMYDIAL INFECTIONS AMONG YOUNG WOMEN 

ENTERING THE NATIONAL JOB TRAINING PROGRAM, 1998-2004

Joesoef MR, Mosure DJ.

Objectives: To assess the trends and risk factors of chlamydial infections in 

disadvantaged women aged 16 to 24 years entering a national job training program.

Goal: To assess the impact of chlamydia screening program on chlamydia trend.

Study Design: The authors calculated the prevalence of Chlamydia by 

demographic and geographic characteristics from 106,377 women who were screened 

from 1998 through 2004.

Results: Chlamydia prevalence was inversely associated with age, decreasing 

from 12.7% in women aged 16 to 17 years to 6.6% in women aged 22 to 24 years. Blacks 

had the highest prevalence (13.1%). Chlamydia prevalence significantly decreased from 

11.7% in 1998 to 10.0% in 2003 and then slightly increased to 10.3% in 2004. After 

direct standardization and adjustment for the laboratory test type, a similar trend was 

observed by age and race/ethnicities.

Conclusions: Among disadvantaged women aged 16 to 24 years entering a 

national job-training program, the chlamydia prevalence and racial disparities in 

prevalence were consistently high from1998 to 2004, especially among younger black 

women.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2006;33:571-575.

1. What is the epidemiologic study design?

2. (a) Identify the exposure(s) of interest (independent variables) and (b) the 

outcome(s) (dependent variables) of interest in the study. 

3. (a) Suggest at least one possible bias (systematic error) that might be present in 

each study. Pay particular attention to how subjects were selected, and what 

information was gathered from them and how it was collected. (b) Explain 

specifically how this could introduce bias into the study.

4. (a) Suggest one or more possible confounding factors related to the data 

collected and analyzed in the study, and (b) explain how it/they might confound 

interpretation of the authors’ findings.

5. (a) Suggest at least one other epidemiologic study design that could address the 

same question(s), and (b) discuss the relative strengths and limitations of the 

other study design compared to the one actually used.