Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475002›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis infection screening at first reception into English prisons: a model-based analysis.

Nyashadzaishe Mafirakureva, Rachael Hunter, Claire F Ferraro, Steve Willner, Thomas Finnie, Andrew Hayward, Andrew Lee, Anjana Roy, Chantal Edge, Peter J Dodd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Nyashadzaishe MafirakurevaSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, UK.
Rachael HunterThe Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Claire F FerraroHealth Equity and Inclusion Health Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Steve WillnerHealth Equity and Inclusion Health Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Thomas FinnieModelling and Data-Science for Emergency Preparedness, Resilience, and Response, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, UK.
Andrew HaywardHealth Equity and Inclusion Health Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Andrew LeeSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, UK.
Anjana RoyHealth Equity and Inclusion Health Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Chantal EdgeHealth Equity and Inclusion Health Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Peter J DoddSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine & Population Health, University of Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends systematic screening for tuberculosis in incarcerated populations, which are consistently at high risk of tuberculosis relative to the general population. In England, new receptions into prisons do not receive screening for tuberculosis infection, and evidence from economic evaluations is lacking. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of introducing systematic screening for tuberculosis infection at first reception into English prisons from a health systems perspective. We used a tuberculosis transmission model calibrated to public data on prison populations and flows. We developed decision tree models of prison-specific tuberculosis care pathways and their costs, informed by stakeholders and pilot studies. Sensitivity analyses included eliminating loss to follow-up (LTFU) in care cascades, zeroing extramural escort costs, and targeting screening to those born in countries with higher tuberculosis incidence (over 40 per 100,000 per year). Findings: In our base case analysis, the intervention had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £78,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Reducing LTFU and avoiding prison escort costs would substantially improve cost-effectiveness, to ICERs of £70,000 and £54,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Targeting those born in higher incidence countries was predicted to be cost-saving. Interpretation: Universal tuberculosis screening and preventive treatment for new receptions into English prisons is not cost-effective by the usual threshold of £30,000. However, targeting high-risk groups could be cost-saving. Tuberculosis interventions should explore ways to reduce LTFU and extramural healthcare in order to meet the needs of those incarcerated while minimizing costs. Funding: UKHSA from 9/2023 to 12/2024.

Indexed as

Cost-utility analysisEconomic evaluationInclusion healthMathematical modelPersons deprived of libertyTBTPTTuberculosis preventive therapy

Identifiers

PMID40475002
PMCPMC12140050

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.