The cost and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Ireland

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 222-228

  Gillespie, Paddy ^a   O'Neill, Ciaran ^a   Adams, Elisabeth ^b   Turner, Katherine ^c   O'Donovan, Diarmuid ^a,d   Brugha, Ruairi ^e   Vaughan, Deirdre ^a   O'Connell, Emer ^d   Cormican, Martin ^a,f   Balfe, Myles ^e   Coleman, Claire ^f   Fitzgerald, Margaret ^d   Fleming, Catherine ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^b Health Economics Consultant   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d Royal College of Surgeons ^*

^e ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND   (Ireland)

^f UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GALWAY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CHLAMYDIASIS; CONJUNCTIVITIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; EPIDIDYMITIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFERTILITY; IRELAND; MALE; NEWBORN CONJUNCTIVITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EPIDIDYMITIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; IRELAND; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PILOT PROJECTS; PNEUMONIA, BACTERIAL; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS, INFECTIOUS; PREGNANCY, ECTOPIC; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TRACHOMA; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84860322179     PISSN: 13684973     EISSN: 14682044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050067     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Review of Chlamydia Control Activities in EU Countries. ECDC Technical Report. Stockholm: ECDC, 2008.
2. Irish Chlamydia Screening Steering Group. Chlamydia Screening in Ireland Pilot (CSIP) Study. A Pilot Study of Opportunistic Screening for Genital Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Ireland (2008-09). Pilot Screening Report. In press.
3. Adams EJ, Turner KM, Edmunds WJ. The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England. Sex Transm Infect 2007;83:267-75.
4. Kretzschmar M, Turner KM, Barton PM, et al. Predicting the population impact of chlamydia screening programmes: Comparative mathematical modelling study. Sex Transm Infect 2009;85:359-66.
5. Health Information of Quality Authority. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland. 2010. http://www.hiqa.ie
6. Central Statistics Office. Dublin. http://www.cso.ie (accessed 10 Jan 2011).
7. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2008. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2008.
8. Central Bank of Ireland. Dublin. http://www.centralbank.ie (accessed 10 Jan 2011).
9. Turner KM, Adams EJ, Gay NJ, et al. Developing a realistic sexual network model of chlamydia transmission in Britain. Theor Biol Med Model 2006;3:3.
10. The Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships. Crisis Pregnancy Agency and Department of Health and Children. 2006. http://www.dohc.ie/ publications/pdf/ISSHR-Main-Report.pdf?direct=1
11. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o= 201974 (reference 0515)
13. SLAN 2007. Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition in Ireland. Department of Health and Children. 2008. http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/ slan07-report.pdf? direct=1
14. Low N, Bender N, Nartey L, et al. Review 2dreview of evidence for the effectiveness of screening for genital chlamydial infection in sexually active young women and men. 2006. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Chlamydia- Screening-Revised-Review-of-Effectiveness.pdf (accessed 30 Apr 2009).
15. Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Merging Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
16. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: The role of costeffectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779-87. (Pubitemid 34041389)
17. Barry M, Tilson L. Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2007;7:605-11.
18. Turner K, Adams E, Grant A, et al. Costs and cost effectiveness of different strategies for chlamydia screening and partner notification: An economic and mathematical modelling study. BMJ 2011;342:c7250.
19. Adams EJ, LaMontagne DS, Johnston AR, et al. Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme. Sex Transm Inf 2004;80:363-70. (Pubitemid 39389553)
20. Robinson S, Roberts T, Barton P, et al. Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: The Chlamydia Screening Studies project. Sex Transm Inf 2007;83:276-81. (Pubitemid 47242505)
21. Andersen B, Gundgaard J, Kretzschmar M, et al. Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population-based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Sex Transm Dis 2006;33:407-15. (Pubitemid 43964749)
22. Gift T, Gaydos C, Kent C, et al. The Program cost and cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women. Sex Transm Dis 2008;35(11 Suppl):S66-75.
23. Welte R, Kretzschmar M, Leidl R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: A population-based approach. Sex Transm Dis 2000;27:518-29.
24. de Vries R, van Bergen JE, de Jong-van den Berg LT, et al. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: Estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data. Value Health 2006;9:1-11.
25. Roberts TE, Robinson S, Barton PM, et al. Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: Economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project. BMJ 2007;335:291Ae4A.
26. Oakeshott P, Kerry S, Aghaizu A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: The POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial. BMJ 2010;340:c1642.
27. Althaus CL, Turner KM, Schmid BV, et al. Transmission of Chlamydia trachomatis through sexual partnerships: A comparison between three individual-based models and empirical data. J R Soc Interface 2012;9:136-46.
28. Health Protection Surveillance Centre. The Need for Chlamydia Screening in Ireland: A Report prepared for the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Health Protection Surveillance Centre. 2005. http://www.hpsc.ie/hpsc/A-Z/ HepatitisHIVAIDSandSTIs/SexuallyTransmittedInfections/Publications/File, 1439,en.pdf
29. Nolan A. Evaluating the impact of eligibility for free care on the use of general practitioner services: A difference-in-difference matching approach. Soc Sci Med 2008;67:1164-72.