Survey assesses chlamydia vaccine interest in youth, revealing key factors influencing acceptability.
Background Chlamydia infection remains a global health concern, justifying need for a chlamydia vaccine. Chlamydia infection rates are highest among young women and men; thus, they would be target populations for vaccination. However, vaccine availability does not ensure uptake. We conducted a survey among youth to identify factors that may influence chlamydia vaccine acceptability. Methods Females and males aged 16-29 years seen for care in adolescent, gynecology, student health and sexual health clinics completed a computer-assisted survey, collecting information on sexual health, healthcare utilization, vaccination history, and factors related to chlamydia and vaccine acceptability. Results Of 399 female and 221 male participants, most (93.2%) had heard of chlamydia, 28.1% reported prior chlamydia infection, and 52.6% believed they could acquire chlamydia infection. Interest in chlamydia vaccination was reported by 42.4% females and associated with non-Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, clinic site, previous influenza or COVID-19 vaccination, and awareness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Among males, 44.8% reported chlamydia vaccination interest which was associated with ethnicity, HPV vaccine awareness, chlamydia awareness, prior chlamydia infection, and possibility of acquiring chlamydia infection. Among all participants, most (82.5%) reported their main motivation for vaccination was to protect themselves and major barriers were concerns about safety (50.0%) and cost (23.1%). The majority (66.0%) reported health care providers as the main resource for vaccine information and were more likely to get vaccinated if recommended by them. Conclusions Less than half of surveyed youth were interested in receiving a chlamydia vaccine. Findings will guide strategies for chlamydia vaccine implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: