OBJECTIVES: Information on the process and method of service delivery is sparse for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, and no systematic study has evaluated the relative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of different HBsAg screening models. To address this need, we compared five specific community-based screening programs. METHODS: We funded five HBsAg screening programs to collect information on their design, costs, and outcomes of participants during a six-month observation period. We categorized programs into four types of models. For each model, we calculated the number screened, the number screened as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, and the cost per screening. RESULTS: The models varied by cost per person screened and total number of people screened, but they did not differ meaningfully in the proportion of people screened following CDC recommendations, the proportion of those screened who tested positive, or the proportion of those who newly tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating screening into outpatient service settings is the most cost-effective method but may not reach all people needing to be screened. Future research should examine cost-effective methods that expand the reach of screening into communities in outpatient settings.
OBJECTIVES: Information on the process and method of service delivery is sparse for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, and no systematic study has evaluated the relative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of different HBsAg screening models. To address this need, we compared five specific community-based screening programs. METHODS: We funded five HBsAg screening programs to collect information on their design, costs, and outcomes of participants during a six-month observation period. We categorized programs into four types of models. For each model, we calculated the number screened, the number screened as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, and the cost per screening. RESULTS: The models varied by cost per person screened and total number of people screened, but they did not differ meaningfully in the proportion of people screened following CDC recommendations, the proportion of those screened who tested positive, or the proportion of those who newly tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating screening into outpatient service settings is the most cost-effective method but may not reach all people needing to be screened. Future research should examine cost-effective methods that expand the reach of screening into communities in outpatient settings.
Authors: Aaron M Harris; Ben T Schoenbachler; Gilberto Ramirez; Claudia Vellozzi; Geoff A Beckett Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: David B Rein; Bryce D Smith; John S Wittenborn; Sarah B Lesesne; Laura D Wagner; Douglas W Roblin; Nita Patel; John W Ward; Cindy M Weinbaum Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Grace X Ma; Carolyn Y Fang; Brenda Seals; Ziding Feng; Yin Tan; Philip Siu; Ming Chin Yeh; Sarit A Golub; Minhhuyen T Nguyen; Tam Tran; Minqi Wang Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Harinder S Chahal; Marion G Peters; Aaron M Harris; Devon McCabe; Paul Volberding; James G Kahn Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-26 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Carmine Rossi; Ian Shrier; Lee Marshall; Sonya Cnossen; Kevin Schwartzman; Marina B Klein; Guido Schwarzer; Chris Greenaway Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susan J M Hahné; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Lucas Wiessing; Tek-Ang Lim; Mika Salminen; Marita van de Laar Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.090