Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29465641›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2018

Relative Impact of Different Strategies for Allocating Federal Funds for Syphilis Prevention.

Harrell W Chesson, Kwame Owusu-Edusei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Harrell W ChessonFrom the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Kwame Owusu-Edusei

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImprovements in resource allocation can increase the benefits of federally funded sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention activities. The purpose of this study was to illustrate how different strategies for allocating federal funds to subnational districts for syphilis prevention might affect the incidence of syphilis at the national level.

methodsWe modeled syphilis rates by district and year using an equation based on a previous analysis of state-level syphilis elimination funding and syphilis case rates from 1998 to 2005 in the United States. We used the model to illustrate the potential impact of 3 different strategies for allocating supplemental federal funds to subnational districts to support syphilis prevention activities a hypothetical country with 18 subnational districts. The 3 strategies were based on each district's (1) population size, (2) syphilis incidence rate, or (3) number of syphilis cases. The hypothetical country was similar to the United States in overall population and syphilis burden.

resultsWithout the supplemental federal funds, there would be an estimated 48,600 incident infections annually in the hypothetical country. With the supplemental federal funds, the annual number of infections would be reduced to 27,800 with a population-based allocation of funding to each district, 26,700 with a rate-based allocation, and 24,400 with a case-based allocation of funding.

conclusionsAllocating federal STD prevention funds to districts based on burden of disease can be an efficient strategy, although this efficiency may be reduced or eliminated when high-burden districts have less ability to provide adequate STD prevention services than lower-burden districts.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentHealth Care RationingFederal GovernmentFinancial ManagementHumansIncidenceSexually Transmitted DiseasesSyphilisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29465641
PMCPMC6745686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.