ArticlePloS one2023
Cost-effectiveness of internet-based HIV screening among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in Metro Vancouver, Canada.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prospects of HIV elimination among men who have sex with men: A systematic review of modeling studies.PLoS computational biology · 2026Pooled it
- Perceived benefits, barriers, and health system consequences of introducing new models of online sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection testing in Ontario, Canada.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Asynchronous Online Platforms Can Reduce Healthcare Costs for STI and HIV Testing: Evaluating GetaKit.ca in Ontario, Canada.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGetCheckedOnline is an internet-based screening service aiming to increase HIV testing among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of GetCheckedOnline in its first implementation phase at different uptake scenarios compared to clinic-based screening services alone in Metro Vancouver, Canada.
methodsFrom a healthcare payer's perspective, our cost-utility analysis used an established dynamic GBMSM HIV compartmental model estimating the probability of acquiring HIV, progressing through diagnosis, disease stages and treatment over a 30-year time horizon. The base case scenario assumed 4.7% uptake of GetCheckedOnline in 2016 (remainder using clinic-based services), with 74% of high-risk and 44% of low-risk infrequent testers becoming regular testers in five years. Scenario analyses tested increased GetCheckedOnline uptake to 10% and 15%.
resultsThe cost per test for GetCheckedOnline was $29.40 compared to clinic-based services $56.92. Compared with clinic-based screening services, the projected increase in testing frequency with 4.7% uptake of GetCheckedOnline increased the costs by $329,600 (95% Credible Interval: -$498,200, $571,000) and gained 4.53 (95%CrI: 0, 9.20) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a 30-year time horizon. The probability of GetCheckedOnline being cost-effective was 34% at the threshold of $50,000 per QALY, and increased to 73% at the threshold of $100,000 per QALY. The results were consistent in the other uptake scenarios. The probability of GetCheckedOnline being cost-effective became 80% at the threshold of $50,000 per QALY if assuming 5-year time horizon.
conclusionsGetCheckedOnline is almost half the cost of clinic-based services on a per-test basis. However, increased access to testing should be balanced with risk profiles of patients to ensure the implementation can be a cost-effective strategy for increasing HIV screening among GBMSM in Metro Vancouver. Additional analyses are needed to understand the impact of internet-based screening including screening for other STIs and in other populations.
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.