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

Fingerprint

Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Telephone
Counseling
Motivation
Research Personnel
Therapeutics
Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics. / Gift, Thomas L.; Malotte, C. Kevin; Ledsky, Rebecca; Hogben, Matthew; Middlestadt, Susan; Vandevanter, Nancy L.; St. Lawrence, Janet S.; Laro, Michelle; Paxton, Keisha; Smith, Lisa V.; Settlage, Robert H.; Davis, Robyn; Richwald, Gary A.; Penniman, Typhanye; Gaines, James; Olthoff, Glen; Zenilman, Jonathan; Vanblerk, Gillian; Ukairo, Chizoba; Fulmer, Kondra; Mattson, Sandi; Johnson, Vida; Merzel, Cheryl; Messeri, Peter; Bleakley, Amy; Weisfuse, Isaac; Cohall, Alwyn; Blank, Susan; Cohall, Renee Mayer; Levine, Deborah; Peake, Michelle; Pequegnat, Willo.

In: Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 32, No. 9, 09.2005, p. 542-549.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gift, TL, Malotte, CK, Ledsky, R, Hogben, M, Middlestadt, S, Vandevanter, NL, St. Lawrence, JS, Laro, M, Paxton, K, Smith, LV, Settlage, RH, Davis, R, Richwald, GA, Penniman, T, Gaines, J, Olthoff, G, Zenilman, J, Vanblerk, G, Ukairo, C, Fulmer, K, Mattson, S, Johnson, V, Merzel, C, Messeri, P, Bleakley, A, Weisfuse, I, Cohall, A, Blank, S, Cohall, RM, Levine, D, Peake, M & Pequegnat, W 2005, 'A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics', Sexually Transmitted Diseases, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 542-549. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59
Gift, Thomas L. ; Malotte, C. Kevin ; Ledsky, Rebecca ; Hogben, Matthew ; Middlestadt, Susan ; Vandevanter, Nancy L. ; St. Lawrence, Janet S. ; Laro, Michelle ; Paxton, Keisha ; Smith, Lisa V. ; Settlage, Robert H. ; Davis, Robyn ; Richwald, Gary A. ; Penniman, Typhanye ; Gaines, James ; Olthoff, Glen ; Zenilman, Jonathan ; Vanblerk, Gillian ; Ukairo, Chizoba ; Fulmer, Kondra ; Mattson, Sandi ; Johnson, Vida ; Merzel, Cheryl ; Messeri, Peter ; Bleakley, Amy ; Weisfuse, Isaac ; Cohall, Alwyn ; Blank, Susan ; Cohall, Renee Mayer ; Levine, Deborah ; Peake, Michelle ; Pequegnat, Willo. / A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics. In: Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2005 ; Vol. 32, No. 9. pp. 542-549.
@article{0e7570c2f25344d4b164803aa95ccfa4,
title = "A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics",
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.",
author = "Gift, {Thomas L.} and Malotte, {C. Kevin} and Rebecca Ledsky and Matthew Hogben and Susan Middlestadt and Vandevanter, {Nancy L.} and {St. Lawrence}, {Janet S.} and Michelle Laro and Keisha Paxton and Smith, {Lisa V.} and Settlage, {Robert H.} and Robyn Davis and Richwald, {Gary A.} and Typhanye Penniman and James Gaines and Glen Olthoff and Jonathan Zenilman and Gillian Vanblerk and Chizoba Ukairo and Kondra Fulmer and Sandi Mattson and Vida Johnson and Cheryl Merzel and Peter Messeri and Amy Bleakley and Isaac Weisfuse and Alwyn Cohall and Susan Blank and Cohall, {Renee Mayer} and Deborah Levine and Michelle Peake and Willo Pequegnat",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "542--549",
journal = "Sexually Transmitted Diseases",
issn = "0148-5717",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to increase repeat testing in patients treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics

AU - Gift, Thomas L.

AU - Malotte, C. Kevin

AU - Ledsky, Rebecca

AU - Hogben, Matthew

AU - Middlestadt, Susan

AU - Vandevanter, Nancy L.

AU - St. Lawrence, Janet S.

AU - Laro, Michelle

AU - Paxton, Keisha

AU - Smith, Lisa V.

AU - Settlage, Robert H.

AU - Davis, Robyn

AU - Richwald, Gary A.

AU - Penniman, Typhanye

AU - Gaines, James

AU - Olthoff, Glen

AU - Zenilman, Jonathan

AU - Vanblerk, Gillian

AU - Ukairo, Chizoba

AU - Fulmer, Kondra

AU - Mattson, Sandi

AU - Johnson, Vida

AU - Merzel, Cheryl

AU - Messeri, Peter

AU - Bleakley, Amy

AU - Weisfuse, Isaac

AU - Cohall, Alwyn

AU - Blank, Susan

AU - Cohall, Renee Mayer

AU - Levine, Deborah

AU - Peake, Michelle

AU - Pequegnat, Willo

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944534476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59

DO - 10.1097/01.olq.0000175414.80023.59

M3 - Article

C2 - 16118602

AN - SCOPUS:24944534476

VL - 32

SP - 542

EP - 549

JO - Sexually Transmitted Diseases

JF - Sexually Transmitted Diseases

SN - 0148-5717

IS - 9

ER -