Multiple chlamydia infection among young women: Comparing the role of individual- and neighbourhood-level measures of socioeconomic status

Katie Brooks Biello, Melinda M. Pettigrew, Linda M. Niccolai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Young women have the highest burden of chlamydia infections, and socioeconomic disparities exist. Individual-level measures of socioeconomic status (SES) may be difficult to assess for young women. The authors examined whether neighbourhood SES provides a useful measure in comparison with individual-level SES with respect to the burden of multiple chlamydia diagnoses. Methods: In a study of young women with chlamydia (n=233; mean age =21 years), multiple infections were assessed with self-report and follow-up testing. General estimating equations and pseudo-R 2 were used to assess the roles of individual-level SES (education and employment) and neighbourhood-level SES (percentage of people in census tract of residence below poverty) on multiple chlamydia diagnoses. Results: Neither education nor employment was associated with multiple chlamydia diagnoses. Women living in high-poverty areas were significantly more likely than those living in low-poverty areas to have multiple chlamydia diagnoses (adjusted OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 10.15). This neighbourhood-level poverty measure improved model fit by 17%. Conclusions: Neighborhood-level poverty may provide a better measure of SES than individual-level variables as a predictor of multiple chlamydia diagnoses in young women and can be useful when valid measures of individual-level SES are unavailable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)560-562
Number of pages3
JournalSexually transmitted infections
Volume87
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multiple chlamydia infection among young women: Comparing the role of individual- and neighbourhood-level measures of socioeconomic status'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this