Gift, T. L., Malotte, C. K., Ledsky, R., Hogben, M., Middlestadt, S., Vandevanter, N. L., St. Lawrence, J. S., Laro, M., Paxton, K., Smith, L. V., Settlage, R. H., Davis, R., Richwald, G. A., Penniman, T., Gaines, J., Olthoff, G., Zenilman, J., Vanblerk, G., Ukairo, C., ... Pequegnat, W. (2005). A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32(9), 542-549. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59
Gift, TL, Malotte, CK, Ledsky, R, Hogben, M, Middlestadt, S, Vandevanter, NL, St. Lawrence, JS, Laro, M, Paxton, K, Smith, LV, Settlage, RH, Davis, R, Richwald, GA, Penniman, T, Gaines, J, Olthoff, G, Zenilman, J, Vanblerk, G, Ukairo, C, Fulmer, K, Mattson, S, Johnson, V, Merzel, C, Messeri, P, Bleakley, A, Weisfuse, I, Cohall, A, Blank, S, Cohall, RM, Levine, D, Peake, M & Pequegnat, W 2005, 'A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics', Sexually Transmitted Diseases, vol. 32, n.º 9, pp. 542-549. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59
@article{f99a3bd472e34a07a90012d1cf55d7f8,
title = "A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Gift, {Thomas L.} and Malotte, {C. Kevin} and Rebecca Ledsky and Matthew Hogben and Susan Middlestadt and Vandevanter, {Nancy L.} and {St. Lawrence}, {Janet S.} and Michelle Laro and Keisha Paxton and Smith, {Lisa V.} and Settlage, {Robert H.} and Robyn Davis and Richwald, {Gary A.} and Typhanye Penniman and James Gaines and Glen Olthoff and Jonathan Zenilman and Gillian Vanblerk and Chizoba Ukairo and Kondra Fulmer and Sandi Mattson and Vida Johnson and Cheryl Merzel and Peter Messeri and Amy Bleakley and Isaac Weisfuse and Alwyn Cohall and Susan Blank and Cohall, {Renee Mayer} and Deborah Levine and Michelle Peake and Willo Pequegnat",
year = "2005",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "542--549",
journal = "Sexually Transmitted Diseases",
issn = "0148-5717",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",
}
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 -