rss
Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:363-370 doi:10.1136/sti.2004.009654
  • Chlamydia

Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme

  1. E J Adams1,
  2. D S LaMontagne2,
  3. A R Johnston3,*,
  4. J M Pimenta4,*,
  5. K A Fenton2,
  6. W J Edmunds1
  1. 1Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, London, UK
  2. 2HIV/STI Department, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, London, UK
  3. 3Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd, Kenepuru Science Centre, Porirua, New Zealand
  4. 4Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Middlesex, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Elisabeth J Adams
 Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK; elisabeth.adamshpa.org.uk
  • Accepted 1 April 2004

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.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Formerly of the Health Protection Agency.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.