+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics



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



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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 011682282

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 16118602

DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59


Related references

Comparison of methods to increase repeat testing in persons treated for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 31(11): 637-642, 2004

Summaries for patients. Chlamydia infection among patients receiving treatment for gonorrhea in sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 139(3): I40-I40, 2003

Problems with condom use among patients attending sexually transmitted disease clinics: prevalence, predictors, and relation to incident gonorrhea and chlamydia. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(3): 341-349, 2008

A burning question Should we continue to co-treat gonorrhea patients for Chlamydia? Co-infection rates from five sexually transmitted disease clinics, United States, 1993-1996. International Journal of STD and AIDS 12(Suppl. 2): 119, 2001

Chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnosis, treatment, personnel cost savings, and service delivery improvements after the implementation of express sexually transmitted disease testing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 41(1): 74-78, 2014

Prevalence and correlates of rectal Chlamydia and gonorrhea among female clients at sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 39(12): 917-922, 2012

Sexually transmitted diseases and the increased risk for HIV transmission: implications for cost-effectiveness analyses of sexually transmitted disease prevention interventions. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 24(1): 48-56, 2000

Chlamydia trachomatis among patients infected with and treated for Neisseria gonorrhoeae in sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 139(3): 178-185, 2003

Cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention Targeting seronegative partners of HIV-infected patients seen in sexually transmitted disease clinics. Abstracts of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 184, 1994

Characterization of patients accepting and refusing routine, voluntary HIV antibody testing in public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 21(1): 31-35, 1994

Self-collection of vaginal swabs for the detection of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis: opportunity to encourage sexually transmitted disease testing among adolescents. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 28(6): 321-325, 2001

Comparative epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection among men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics with and without indication for testing. International Journal of Std and Aids 17(7): 453-458, 2006

Sexually transmitted disease testing protocols, sexually transmitted disease testing, and discussion of sexual behaviors in HIV clinics in Los Angeles County. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 32(6): 341-345, 2005

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis A/B vaccine versus hepatitis B vaccine in public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 30(11): 859-865, 2003

Comparisons of cost and accuracy of DNA probe test and culture for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in patients attending public sexually transmitted disease clinics in Los Angeles County. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 24(7): 422-428, 1997