TY - JOUR
T1 - A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics
AU - Gift, Thomas L.
AU - Malotte, C. Kevin
AU - Ledsky, Rebecca
AU - Hogben, Matthew
AU - Middlestadt, Susan
AU - Vandevanter, Nancy L.
AU - St. Lawrence, Janet S.
AU - Laro, Michelle
AU - Paxton, Keisha
AU - Smith, Lisa V.
AU - Settlage, Robert H.
AU - Davis, Robyn
AU - Richwald, Gary A.
AU - Penniman, Typhanye
AU - Gaines, James
AU - Olthoff, Glen
AU - Zenilman, Jonathan
AU - Vanblerk, Gillian
AU - Ukairo, Chizoba
AU - Fulmer, Kondra
AU - Mattson, Sandi
AU - Johnson, Vida
AU - Merzel, Cheryl
AU - Messeri, Peter
AU - Bleakley, Amy
AU - Weisfuse, Isaac
AU - Cohall, Alwyn
AU - Blank, Susan
AU - Cohall, Renee Mayer
AU - Levine, Deborah
AU - Peake, Michelle
AU - Pequegnat, Willo
PY - 2005/9
Y1 - 2005/9
N2 - Background: Persons who have been infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) are at elevated risk for reinfection. The cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to encourage public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic patients to return for rescreening has not been well-evaluated. Goal: The goal of this study was to conduct a program- and societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis of five interventions designed to encourage public STD clinic patients infected with CT/GC to return for rescreening 3 months after initial treatment. Study: Researchers at two STD clinics collected cost data for the five interventions. These were combined with study data on return rates and CT/GC positivity rates among returning patients to compare the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: The cost per patient counseled with a brief recommendation to return, followed by a telephone reminder after 3 months, was higher than two interventions: a brief recommendation to return with no reminder and a $20 incentive, received on return. However, the brief recommendation with a telephone reminder yielded the highest return rate (33%) and was the least costly in terms of cost per infection treated ($622 program, $813 societal). In-depth motivational counseling that helped clients identify risk factors and provided reasons for returning was more costly than a phone reminder alone and was not more effective. Conclusions: Phone reminders are more cost-effective than motivational counseling and improve return rates over a brief recommendation given at the time of initial treatment.
AB - Background: Persons who have been infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) are at elevated risk for reinfection. The cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to encourage public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic patients to return for rescreening has not been well-evaluated. Goal: The goal of this study was to conduct a program- and societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis of five interventions designed to encourage public STD clinic patients infected with CT/GC to return for rescreening 3 months after initial treatment. Study: Researchers at two STD clinics collected cost data for the five interventions. These were combined with study data on return rates and CT/GC positivity rates among returning patients to compare the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: The cost per patient counseled with a brief recommendation to return, followed by a telephone reminder after 3 months, was higher than two interventions: a brief recommendation to return with no reminder and a $20 incentive, received on return. However, the brief recommendation with a telephone reminder yielded the highest return rate (33%) and was the least costly in terms of cost per infection treated ($622 program, $813 societal). In-depth motivational counseling that helped clients identify risk factors and provided reasons for returning was more costly than a phone reminder alone and was not more effective. Conclusions: Phone reminders are more cost-effective than motivational counseling and improve return rates over a brief recommendation given at the time of initial treatment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59
DO - 10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59
M3 - Article
C2 - 16118602
AN - SCOPUS:24944534476
SN - 0148-5717
VL - 32
SP - 542
EP - 549
JO - Sexually Transmitted Diseases
JF - Sexually Transmitted Diseases
IS - 9
ER -