RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Exploring the costs and outcomes of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football club settings: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the SPORTSMART pilot randomised controlled trial JF Sexually Transmitted Infections JO Sex Transm Infect FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd SP 100 OP 105 DO 10.1136/sextrans-2014-051715 VO 91 IS 2 A1 Louise J Jackson A1 Tracy E Roberts A1 Sebastian S Fuller A1 Lorna J Sutcliffe A1 John M Saunders A1 Andrew J Copas A1 Catherine H Mercer A1 Jackie A Cassell A1 Claudia S Estcourt YR 2015 UL http://sti.bmj.com/content/91/2/100.abstract AB Background The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes of two sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeted at men in football club settings in England, including screening promoted by team captains. Methods A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside a pilot cluster randomised control trial involving three trial arms: (1) captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; (2) sexual health advisor-led and poster STI screening promotion and (3) poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). For all study arms, resource use and cost data were collected prospectively. Results There was considerable variation in uptake rates between clubs, but results were broadly comparable across study arms with 50% of men accepting the screening offer in the captain-led arm, 67% in the sexual health advisor-led arm and 61% in the poster-only control arm. The overall costs associated with the intervention arms were similar. The average cost per player tested was comparable, with the average cost per player tested for the captain-led promotion estimated to be £88.99 compared with £88.33 for the sexual health advisor-led promotion and £81.87 for the poster-only (control) arm. Conclusions Costs and outcomes were similar across intervention arms. The target sample size was not achieved, and we found a greater than anticipated variability between clubs in the acceptability of screening, which limited our ability to estimate acceptability for intervention arms. Further evidence is needed about the public health benefits associated with screening interventions in non-clinical settings so that their cost-effectiveness can be fully evaluated.