Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17229792›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2007

Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.

Suzanne Robinson, Tracy Roberts, Pelham Barton, Stirling Bryan, John Macleod, Anne McCarthy, Matthias Egger, Emma Sanford, Nicola Low, Chlamydia Screening Studies ClaSS Project Group

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Focus on Chlamydia.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Suzanne RobinsonHealth Economics Facility, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham, UK. s.m.robinson@bham.ac.uk
Tracy Roberts
Pelham Barton
Stirling Bryan
John Macleod
Anne McCarthy
Matthias Egger
Emma Sanford
Nicola Low
Chlamydia Screening Studies ClaSS Project Group
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveMost economic evaluations of chlamydia screening do not include costs incurred by patients. The objective of this study was to estimate both the health service and private costs of patients who participated in proactive chlamydia screening, using mailed home-collected specimens as part of the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.

methodsData were collected on the administrative costs of the screening study, laboratory time and motion studies and patient-cost questionnaire surveys were conducted. The cost for each screening invitation and for each accepted offer was estimated. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effects of variations in patient costs and the number of patients accepting the screening offer.

resultsThe time and costs of processing urine specimens and vulvo-vaginal swabs from women using two nucleic acid amplification tests were similar. The total cost per screening invitation was 20.37 pounds (95% CI 18.94 pounds to 24.83). This included the National Health Service cost per individual screening invitation 13.55 pounds (95% CI 13.15 pounds to 14.33) and average patient costs of 6.82 pounds (95% CI 5.48 pounds to 10.22). Administrative costs accounted for 50% of the overall cost.

conclusionsThe cost of proactive chlamydia screening is comparable to those of opportunistic screening. Results from this study, which is the first to collect private patient costs associated with a chlamydia screening programme, could be used to inform future policy recommendations and provide unique primary cost data for economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Chlamydia trachomatisAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsClinical Laboratory TechniquesCost of IllnessEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMass ScreeningState MedicineTime and Motion StudiesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID17229792
PMCPMC2598691
OpenAlexW2109285744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.