Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2007 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2007 |Article ID 62467 | 5 pages |

Cost Comparisons between Home- and Clinic-Based Testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases in High-Risk Young Women

Received08 Aug 2007
Accepted15 Oct 2007
Published09 Dec 2007


Home testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea increases screening rates, but the cost consequences of this intervention are unclear. We examined the cost differences between home-based and clinic-based testing and the cost-effectiveness of home testing based on the DAISY study, a randomized controlled trial. Direct and indirect costs were estimated for home and clinic testing, and cost-effectiveness was calculated as cost per additional test performed. In the clinic testing group, direct costs were $49/test and indirect costs (the costs of seeking or receiving care) were $62/test. Home testing cost was $25/test. We found that home testing was cost saving when all testing for all patients was considered. However cost savings were not seen when only asymptomatic tests or when patient subgroups were considered. A home testing program could be cost saving, depending on whether changes in clinic testing frequency occur when home testing is available.


  1. R. L. Cook, L. Ostergaard, S. L. Hillier et al., “Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 286–291, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. L. Ostergaard, B. Andersen, F. Olesen, and J. K. Moller, “Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis randomised study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 317, no. 7150, pp. 26–27, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  3. L. Ostergaard, B. Andersen, J. K. Moller, and F. Olesen, “Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 951–957, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. D. Hu, E. W. Hook III, and S. J. Goldie, “Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 141, no. 7, pp. 501–503, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  5. D. Scholes, A. Stergachis, F. E. Heidrich, H. Andrilla, K. K. Holmes, and W. E. Stamm, “Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 334, no. 21, pp. 1362–1366, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. N. Calonge, D. B. Petitti, J. D. Allan et al., “Screening for gonorrhea: recommendation statement,” Annals of Family Medicine, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 263–267, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. E. Aledort, E. W. Hook III, M. C. Weinstein, and S. J. Goldie, “The cost effectiveness of gonorrhea screening in urban emergency departments,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 425–436, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. R. L. Cook, H. C. Wiesenfeld, M. R. Ashton, M. A. Krohn, T. Zamborsky, and S. H. Scholle, “Barriers to screening sexually active adolescent women for Chlamydia a survey of primary care physicians,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 204–210, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. W. C. Levine, L. W. Dicker, O. Devine, and D. J. Mosure, “Indirect estimation of Chlamydia screening coverage using public health surveillance data,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 160, no. 1, pp. 91–96, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. M. R. Gold, J. E. Siegel, L. B. Russell, and M. C. Weinstein, Eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
  11. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Hourly wage of production workers,” 2005, View at: Google Scholar
  12. T. O. Tengs, M. E. Adams, J. S. Pliskin et al., “Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness,” Risk Analysis, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 369–390, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2007 Kenneth J. Smith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

0 Views | 0 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Order printed copiesOrder
 Sign up for content alertsSign up