Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2007 Jul;83(4):276-81.
doi: 10.1136/sti.2006.023374. Epub 2007 Jan 17.

Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project

Suzanne Robinson et al. Sex Transm Infect. 2007 Jul.

Abstract

Background and objective: Most economic evaluations of chlamydia screening do not include costs incurred by patients. The objective of this study was to estimate both the health service and private costs of patients who participated in proactive chlamydia screening, using mailed home-collected specimens as part of the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.

Methods: Data were collected on the administrative costs of the screening study, laboratory time and motion studies and patient-cost questionnaire surveys were conducted. The cost for each screening invitation and for each accepted offer was estimated. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effects of variations in patient costs and the number of patients accepting the screening offer.

Results: The time and costs of processing urine specimens and vulvo-vaginal swabs from women using two nucleic acid amplification tests were similar. The total cost per screening invitation was 20.37 pounds (95% CI 18.94 pounds to 24.83). This included the National Health Service cost per individual screening invitation 13.55 pounds (95% CI 13.15 pounds to 14.33) and average patient costs of 6.82 pounds (95% CI 5.48 pounds to 10.22). Administrative costs accounted for 50% of the overall cost.

Conclusions: The cost of proactive chlamydia screening is comparable to those of opportunistic screening. Results from this study, which is the first to collect private patient costs associated with a chlamydia screening programme, could be used to inform future policy recommendations and provide unique primary cost data for economic evaluations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

References

    1. La Montagne D S, Fenton K A, Randall S.et al Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect 200480335–341. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kamwendo F, Forslin L, Bodin L.et al Programmes to reduce pelvic inflammatory disease—the Swedish experience. Lancet 1998351(Suppl 3)25–28. - PubMed
    1. Low N. Current status of chlamydia screening in Europe. Eurosurveillance 200455
    1. Pimenta J M, Catchpole M, Rogers P A.et al Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases, Sex Transm Inf 20037922–27. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adams E J, La Montagne D S, Johnston A R. Modelling the heathcare costs of an opportunistic Chlamydia screening programme. Sex Transm Infect 200480362–370. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types