OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental effects and costs of a home sampling screening approach for Chlamydia trachomatis over the current in-office screening practice in Denmark. GOALS: To assess the effect of a new screening strategy. STUDY DESIGN: A dynamic Monte Carlo model estimated prevalence and incidence over 10 years for a home sampling screening program and the current in-office screening. Subsequently, the incremental number of major outcomes averted (MOA) and the related direct and indirect costs were estimated. RESULTS: Infection prevalence after 10 years was 1.0% with a home sampling program and 4.2% with the current in-office screening practice. The total costs per MOA reached 3186 US dollars during the first year of the home sampling strategy, but in year 4, the accumulated indirect costs offset the direct costs, and the program henceforth saved society costs. CONCLUSIONS: Home sampling should be considered a relevant alternative to the current practice of in-office screening.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental effects and costs of a home sampling screening approach for Chlamydia trachomatis over the current in-office screening practice in Denmark. GOALS: To assess the effect of a new screening strategy. STUDY DESIGN: A dynamic Monte Carlo model estimated prevalence and incidence over 10 years for a home sampling screening program and the current in-office screening. Subsequently, the incremental number of major outcomes averted (MOA) and the related direct and indirect costs were estimated. RESULTS: Infection prevalence after 10 years was 1.0% with a home sampling program and 4.2% with the current in-office screening practice. The total costs per MOA reached 3186 US dollars during the first year of the home sampling strategy, but in year 4, the accumulated indirect costs offset the direct costs, and the program henceforth saved society costs. CONCLUSIONS: Home sampling should be considered a relevant alternative to the current practice of in-office screening.
Authors: Marcia M Hobbs; Barbara van der Pol; Patricia Totten; Charlotte A Gaydos; Anna Wald; Terri Warren; Rachel L Winer; Robert L Cook; Carolyn D Deal; M Elizabeth Rogers; Julius Schachter; King K Holmes; David H Martin Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Ingrid V F van den Broek; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jan E A M van Bergen; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Eva M de Feijter; Johannes S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Rik H Koekenbier; Sander M van Ravesteijn; Eline L M Op de Coul Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2010-04-07 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Ingrid V F van den Broek; Jan E A M van Bergen; Elfi E H G Brouwers; Johannes S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Christian J P A Hoebe; Rik H Koekenbier; Mirjam Kretzschmar; Eelco A B Over; Boris V Schmid; Lydia L Pars; Sander M van Ravesteijn; Marianne A B van der Sande; G Ardine de Wit; Nicola Low; Eline L M Op de Coul Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-05
Authors: Bethan Davies; Helen Ward; Stella Leung; Katy M E Turner; Geoff P Garnett; James F Blanchard; B Nancy Yu Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Boris V Schmid; Eelco A B Over; Ingrid V F van den Broek; Eline L M Op de Coul; Jan E A M van Bergen; Johan S A Fennema; Hannelore M Götz; Christian J P A Hoebe; G Ardine de Wit; Marianne A B van der Sande; Mirjam E E Kretzschmar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240