ArticleBMJ public health2025
Micro-costing analysis of integrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests into routine health facility services: a comparison of test-all versus screen-and-test models in Cameroon and Kenya.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Activity-Based Costing of COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing in Public Laboratories in Indonesia: Evidence for Tariff Setting.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIntroduction: Understanding costs associated with identification of emerging infections is critical to inform the policy. Nested within a randomised controlled trial that found that a test-all (TA) model for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing identified more SARS-CoV-2 cases than the standard screen-and-test (ST) model. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of integrating SARS-CoV-2 services into maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH), HIV and tuberculosis (TB) clinics using the two models in Cameroon and Kenya. Methods: The total costs of implementing the TA and ST models in Cameroon and Kenya were estimated from a health systems perspective using a micro-costing method. The cost per client tested (CPCT) and tested positive (CPCTP) for SARS-CoV-2 were estimated by dividing the total cost of each model by the number of clients tested and tested positive, respectively. A decision tree and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two models. Results: In Cameroon, the total cost of the TA model was US$141,942, while the ST model was US$48,020. In the TA model, the CPCT was US$7.66 and the CPCTP was US$508.75, whereas in the ST model, they were US$25.02 and US$727.58, respectively. In the TA model, the biggest cost was SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs) at 61% (US$86,853), whereas in the ST model, it was personnel at 39% (US$18,592). In Kenya, the total cost was US$39,264 in the TA model and US$27,500 in the ST model. The TA CPCT was US$13.04 and the CPCTP was US$1,189.81, whereas in the ST model the costs were $125.00 and $1,250.01 respectively. In both models in Kenya, the biggest expenditure was personnel, at 45% ($17,696) of cost in TA and 56% ($15,267) in ST. In both countries, the TA model was more cost-effective. Conclusions: Implementation of the TA model is a more cost-effective approach to increase early identification of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.