Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2004 Oct;80(5):363–370. doi: 10.1136/sti.2004.009654

Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme

E Adams 1, D LaMontagne 1, A Johnston 1, J Pimenta 1, K Fenton 1, W Edmunds 1
PMCID: PMC1744903  PMID: 15459403

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the average cost per screening offer, cost per testing episode and cost per chlamydia positive episode for an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme (including partner management), and to explore the uncertainty of parameter assumptions, based on the costs to the healthcare system.

Methods: A decision tree was constructed and parameterised using empirical data from a chlamydia screening pilot study and other sources. The model was run using baseline data from the pilot, and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total estimated cost for offering screening over 12 months to 33 215 females aged 16–24 was £493 412. The average cost (with partner management) was £14.88 per screening offer (90% credibility interval (CI) 10.34 to 18.56), £21.83 per testing episode (90% CI 18.16 to 24.20), and £38.36 per positive episode (90% CI 33.97 to 42.25). The proportion of individuals accepting screening, the clinician (general practitioner/nurse) time and their relative involvement in discussing screening, the test cost, the time to notify patients of their results, and the receptionist time recruiting patients had the greatest impact on the outcomes in both the univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Results from this costing study may be used to inform resource allocation for current and future chlamydia screening programme implementation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (253.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Addiss D. G., Vaughn M. L., Ludka D., Pfister J., Davis J. P. Decreased prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection associated with a selective screening program in family planning clinics in Wisconsin. Sex Transm Dis. 1993 Jan-Feb;20(1):28–35. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199301000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dicker L. W., Mosure D. J., Levine W. C. Chlamydia positivity versus prevalence. What's the difference? Sex Transm Dis. 1998 May;25(5):251–253. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199805000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fenton K. A., Korovessis C., Johnson A. M., McCadden A., McManus S., Wellings K., Mercer C. H., Carder C., Copas A. J., Nanchahal K. Sexual behaviour in Britain: reported sexually transmitted infections and prevalent genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Lancet. 2001 Dec 1;358(9296):1851–1854. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06886-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Honey E., Augood C., Templeton A., Russell I., Paavonen J., Mårdh P-A, Stary A., Stray-Pedersen B. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Dec;78(6):406–412. doi: 10.1136/sti.78.6.406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Howell M. R., Kassler W. J., Haddix A. Partner notification to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women. Cost-effectiveness of two strategies. Sex Transm Dis. 1997 May;24(5):287–292. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199705000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Howell M. R., Quinn T. C., Gaydos C. A. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Feb 15;128(4):277–284. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-4-199802150-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Marrazzo J. M., Celum C. L., Hillis S. D., Fine D., DeLisle S., Handsfield H. H. Performance and cost-effectiveness of selective screening criteria for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women. Implications for a national Chlamydia control strategy. Sex Transm Dis. 1997 Mar;24(3):131–141. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199703000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pimenta J. M., Catchpole M., Rogers P. A., Hopwood J., Randall S., Mallinson H., Perkins E., Jackson N., Carlisle C., Hewitt G. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):22–27. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pimenta J. M., Catchpole M., Rogers P. A., Perkins E., Jackson N., Carlisle C., Randall S., Hopwood J., Hewitt G., Underhill G. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):16–21. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Postma M. J., Welte R., van den Hoek J. A., van Doornum G. J., Jager H. C., Coutinho R. A. Cost-effectiveness of partner pharmacotherapy in screening women for asymptomatic infection with Chlamydia Trachomatis. Value Health. 2001 May-Jun;4(3):266–275. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43009.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Scholes D., Stergachis A., Heidrich F. E., Andrilla H., Holmes K. K., Stamm W. E. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1362–1366. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Welte R., Kretzschmar M., Leidl R., van den Hoek A., Jager J. C., Postma M. J. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach. Sex Transm Dis. 2000 Oct;27(9):518–529. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200010000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Sexually Transmitted Infections are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES