A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics

Thomas L. Gift, C. Kevin Malotte, Rebecca Ledsky, Matthew Hogben, Susan Middlestadt, Nancy L. Vandevanter, Janet S. St. Lawrence, Michelle Laro, Keisha Paxton, Lisa V. Smith, Robert H. Settlage, Robyn Davis, Gary A. Richwald, Typhanye Penniman, James Gaines, Glen Olthoff, Jonathan Zenilman, Gillian Vanblerk, Chizoba Ukairo, Kondra FulmerSandi Mattson, Vida Johnson, Cheryl Merzel, Peter Messeri, Amy Bleakley, Isaac Weisfuse, Alwyn Cohall, Susan Blank, Renee Mayer Cohall, Deborah Levine, Michelle Peake, Willo Pequegnat

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Persons who have been infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) are at elevated risk for reinfection. The cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to encourage public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic patients to return for rescreening has not been well-evaluated. Goal: The goal of this study was to conduct a program- and societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis of five interventions designed to encourage public STD clinic patients infected with CT/GC to return for rescreening 3 months after initial treatment. Study: Researchers at two STD clinics collected cost data for the five interventions. These were combined with study data on return rates and CT/GC positivity rates among returning patients to compare the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: The cost per patient counseled with a brief recommendation to return, followed by a telephone reminder after 3 months, was higher than two interventions: a brief recommendation to return with no reminder and a $20 incentive, received on return. However, the brief recommendation with a telephone reminder yielded the highest return rate (33%) and was the least costly in terms of cost per infection treated ($622 program, $813 societal). In-depth motivational counseling that helped clients identify risk factors and provided reasons for returning was more costly than a phone reminder alone and was not more effective. Conclusions: Phone reminders are more cost-effective than motivational counseling and improve return rates over a brief recommendation given at the time of initial treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)542-549
Number of pages8
JournalSexually Transmitted Diseases
Volume32
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this