Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16–25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 123, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1194-1202

  Ong, J J ^a,b   Chen, M ^b,c   Hocking, J ^a   Fairley, C K ^b,c   Carter, R ^d   Bulfone, L ^d   Hsueh, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b MELBOURNE SEXUAL HEALTH CENTRE   (Australia)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Antenatal; chlamydia; cost effectiveness; screening

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CHLAMYDIA; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL FEE; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL CARE; PRENATAL SCREENING; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVENESS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR;

EID: 84978371450     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13567     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Surveillance systems reported in Communicable Diseases Intelligence. 2014 [www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishings.nsf/Content/cda-surveil-surv_sys.htm]. Accessed 11 September 2014.
2. Health Protection Reports: latest infection reports. Public Health England. [www.gov.uk/government/collections/health-protection-report-latest-infection-reports]. Accessed 8 December 2014.
3. Chen MY, Fairley CK, De Guingand D, Hocking J, Tabrizi S, Wallace EM, et al. Screening pregnant women for chlamydia: what are the predictors of infection? Sex Transm Infect 2009;85:31–5.
4. Cheney K, Wray L. Chlamydia and associated factors in an under 20s antenatal population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:40–3.
5. Ryan GM Jr, Abdella TN, McNeeley SG, Baselski VS, Drummond DE. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy and effect of treatment on outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:34–9.
6. Schachter J, Grossman M, Sweet RL, Holt J, Jordan C, Bishop E. Prospective study of perinatal transmission of Chlamydia trachomatis. JAMA 1986;255:3374–7.
7. Preece PM, Anderson JM, Thompson RG. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in infants: a prospective study. Arch Disease Childhood 1989;64:525–9.
8. Baud D, Regan L, Greub G. Emerging role of Chlamydia and Chlamydia-like organisms in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Curr Opin Infect dDis 2008;21:70–6.
9. Peipert JF. Clinical practice. Genital chlamydial infections. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2424–30.
10. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Antenatal care—Module I. 2012 [www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/015FBFDD266795DBCA257BF0001A0547/$File/ANC_Guidelines_Mod1_v32.pdf]. Accessed 31 March 2014.
11. Screening for Chlamydia infection. [www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspschlm.htm]. Accessed 29 September 2014.
12. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Clinical Guideline. [www.pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/antenatal-care]. Accessed 8 December 2014.
13. Li Z, Chen M, Guy R, Wand H, Oats J, Sullivan EA. Chlamydia screening in pregnancy in Australia: integration of national guidelines into clinical practice and policy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;53:338–46.
14. Honey E, Augood C, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, et al. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:406–12.
15. Norman JE, Wu O, Twaddle S, Macmillan S, McMillan L, Templeton A, et al. An evaluation of economics and acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, in women attending antenatal, abortion, colposcopy and family planning clinics in Scotland, UK. BJOG 2004;111:1261–8.
16. Bilardi JE, De Guingand DL, Temple-Smith MJ, Garland S, Fairley CK, Grover S, et al. Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care. BMC Public Health 2010;10:505.
17. Yeh JM, Hook EW 3rd, Goldie SJ. A refined estimate of the average lifetime cost of pelvic inflammatory disease. Sex Transm Dis 2003;30:369–78.
18. Wager GP, Martin DH, Koutsky L, Eschenbach DA, Daling JR, Chiang WT, et al. Puerperal infectious morbidity: relationship to route of delivery and to antepartum Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;138:1028–33.
19. Oakeshott P, Kerry S, Aghaizu A, Atherton H, Hay S, Taylor-Robinson D, 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.
20. Medicare Benefits Schedule. [ww.health.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/Medicare-Benefits-Schedule-MBS-1]. Accessed 10 July 2014.
21. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. [www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home]. Accessed 10 July 2014.
22. Australian refined diagnosis related groups version 6. 2012 [www.ihpa.gov.au/internet/ihpa/publishing.nsf/Content/CA25794400122452CA257B280015FF6B/$File/AR-DRG-v6x-addendum.pdf]. Acc-essed 3 April 2014.
23. Public hospital fee schedule and guidelines: 2013–14. [www.workcover.com/documents.ashx?Id=21332&type=pdf]. Accessed 28 March 2014.
24. Stratton K. Vaccines for the 21st Century: A Tool for Decisionmaking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
25. Walker J, Tabrizi SN, Fairley CK, Chen MY, Bradshaw CS, Twin J, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis incidence and re-infection among young women–behavioural and microbiological characteristics. PLoS ONE 2012;7(5):e37778.
26. Rissel C, Badcock PB, Smith AM, Richters J, de Visser RO, Grulich AE, et al. Heterosexual experience and recent heterosexual encounters among Australian adults: the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sex Health 2014;11:416–26.
27. Althaus CL, Turner KM, Mercer CH, Auguste P, Roberts TE, Bell G, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections: observational study, systematic reviews and mathematical modelling. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1–100, vii–viii.
28. Russell LB, Fryback DG, Sonnenberg FA. Is the societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis useful for decision makers? Joint Commission J Quality Improvement 1999;25:447–54.
29. Postma M. Cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic women for Chlamydia trachomatis. Health Econ Prev Care 2000;1:103–10.
30. Adams EJ, Turner KM, Edmunds WJ. The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England. Sex Transm Infect 2007;83:267–74; discussion 74–5.
31. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Maternal and perinatal data. [www.aihw.gov.au/mothers-and-babies/]. Accessed 11 May 2014.
32. Roberts TE, Robinson S, Barton P, Bryan S, Low N, Chlamydia Screening Studies G. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:193–200; discussion 1.
33. Australia's notifiable disease status. Annual report of the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. 2011 [www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-surveil-nndss-2011-annual-report.htm]. Accessed 28 March 2014.