ArticleAIDS care2016
Novel emergency department registration kiosk for HIV screening is cost-effective.
Article in AIDS care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Article
- Changing HCW attitudes: a case study of normalizing HIV service delivery in emergency departments.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The Role of Health Kiosks: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and beyond: Lessons learned from emergency department HIV screening for population-based screening in healthcare settings.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Utilization of integrated health kiosks: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High operating costs challenge sustainability of successful US emergency department (ED) HIV screening programs. Free-standing registration kiosks could potentially reduce the marginal costs of ED HIV screening. We investigated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) per new HIV diagnosis for a kiosk-based approach for offering screening at ED registration versus a testing staff-based approach to offer testing at the bedside. A rapid oral-fluid HIV screening program, instituted in a US ED since 2005, had a rate of new HIV diagnosis 0.16% in 2012. A two-phase quasi experimental design, including a testing staff-based approach to offer testing at the bedside (Phase I, August and September 2011) and a kiosk-based approach to offer testing at ED registration (Phase II, December 2011 and January 2012), was performed. CER per new HIV diagnosis was defined as total cost of the screening program divided by number of newly diagnosed cases. Costs included screening program personnel (study coordinator, testing staff, and kiosk helpers), diagnostic assays (rapid and confirmatory tests), and kiosks (2 kiosks, software, and IT consulting fees). Sensitivity analyses were performed. Data from our dedicated testing staff (DTS) program (Phase I) resulted in an estimated 5434 patients tested in one year and 9 newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients (95% CI: 3, 18). Data from the kiosk program (Phase II), resulted in a projected 4571 ED patients tested in one year and 21 newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients (95% CI: 4, 70). The overall cost was $ 201,433 for the DTS program, versus $292,008 for the kiosk program. Incremental CER per new HIV diagnosis for kiosk-based approach was $7523 (range: $1780-90,025 by sensitivity analysis). Our pilot data demonstrated that the use of kiosks for HIV screening was potentially more cost-effective than a testing staff-based bedside approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.