Research Article | Open Access
Cost Comparisons between Home- and Clinic-Based Testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases in High-Risk Young Women
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Hourly wage of production workers,” 2005, http://www.bls.gov.
- 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.
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.