Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40061153›Full record

ArticleAJPM focus2025

Health and Economic Impact of COVID-19 Surveillance Testing in Seattle Homeless Shelters: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Sarah N Cox, Eric J Chow, Melissa A Rolfes, Emily Mosites, Monisha Sharma, Helen Y Chu, Marita Zimmermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJPM focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Sarah N CoxDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Eric J ChowDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Melissa A RolfesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emily MositesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Monisha SharmaDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Helen Y ChuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Marita ZimmermannDepartment of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: COVID-19 surveillance in congregate settings is important to mitigating disease, but the health and economic impact of testing remains unclear. Methods: The authors developed a Markov model to project the cost-utility of COVID-19 testing strategies in homeless shelters from the healthcare payer and societal perspective over 1 year. Model inputs utilized data from residents aged ≥18 years across 23 Seattle shelters from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. No in-shelter surveillance was compared with scenarios of 2 COVID-19 testing strategies implemented monthly: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and rapid antigen testing; scenarios in which only PCR testing was available were also evaluated. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years. Interventions were considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year and dominant if they saved costs and provided health effects. Results: When assuming the availability of both antigen and PCR tests, most rapid antigen testing strategies were cost-effective, whereas PCR testing was dominated by antigen testing. Compared with no in-shelter surveillance, antigen testing increased mean quality-adjusted life years by 0.0009 (0.03% infections averted) at an incremental cost of $97/resident from the healthcare perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$112,352/quality-adjusted life year gained) and $8/resident from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$9,627/quality-adjusted life year gained) at 75% vaccination coverage. PCR testing was not cost-effective when antigen testing was available but was cost-effective compared with no surveillance at low vaccination coverage levels (<30% coverage from the healthcare perspective and ≤48% coverage from the societal perspective). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that antigen testing was cost-effective in 62% and 86% of simulations from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Conclusions: Modeled findings show that COVID-19 testing in shelters can be a cost-effective pandemic response. Antigen testing remained cost-effective at high vaccination levels, whereas PCR testing was most effective at low vaccination levels if antigen testing was not available.

Indexed as

cost-effectivecost-utilityCOVID-19Homeless shelterssurveillancevaccination

Identifiers

PMID40061153
PMCPMC11889550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.