BACKGROUND: Cost-effective, scalable interventions are needed to address high rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States. Safe in the City, a 23-minute video intervention designed for STD clinic waiting rooms, effectively reduced new infections among STD clinic clients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of this type of intervention could inform whether it should be replicated. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of a brief video intervention was calculated under a baseline scenario in which this type of intervention was expanded to a larger patient population. Alternative scenarios included expanding the intervention over a longer period or to more clinics, including HIV prevention benefits, and operating the intervention part time. Program costs, net costs per STD case averted, and the discounted net cost of the intervention were calculated from a health sector perspective across the scenarios. Monte Carlo simulations were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals surrounding the cost-effectiveness measures. RESULTS: The net cost per case averted was $75 in the baseline scenario. The net cost of the intervention was $108,015, and most of the alternative scenarios found that the intervention was cost saving compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Single session, video-based interventions can be highly cost effective when implemented at scale. Updated video-based interventions that account for the changing STD landscape in the United States could play an important role in addressing the recent increases in infections.
BACKGROUND: Cost-effective, scalable interventions are needed to address high rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States. Safe in the City, a 23-minute video intervention designed for STD clinic waiting rooms, effectively reduced new infections among STD clinic clients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of this type of intervention could inform whether it should be replicated. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of a brief video intervention was calculated under a baseline scenario in which this type of intervention was expanded to a larger patient population. Alternative scenarios included expanding the intervention over a longer period or to more clinics, including HIV prevention benefits, and operating the intervention part time. Program costs, net costs per STD case averted, and the discounted net cost of the intervention were calculated from a health sector perspective across the scenarios. Monte Carlo simulations were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals surrounding the cost-effectiveness measures. RESULTS: The net cost per case averted was $75 in the baseline scenario. The net cost of the intervention was $108,015, and most of the alternative scenarios found that the intervention was cost saving compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Single session, video-based interventions can be highly cost effective when implemented at scale. Updated video-based interventions that account for the changing STD landscape in the United States could play an important role in addressing the recent increases in infections.
Authors: Ariane Lisann Bedimo; Steven D Pinkerton; Deborah A Cohen; Bradley Gray; Thomas A Farley Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Tamar C Renaud; Angelica Bocour; Mary K Irvine; Kyle T Bernstein; Elizabeth M Begier; Kent A Sepkowitz; Scott E Kellerman; Daniel Weglein Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Preeti Pathela; Ellen J Klingler; Sarah L Guerry; Kyle T Bernstein; Roxanne P Kerani; Lisa Llata; Hayley D Mark; Irina Tabidze; Cornelis A Rietmeijer Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jeb Jones; Kevin Weiss; Jonathan Mermin; Patricia Dietz; Eli S Rosenberg; Thomas L Gift; Harrell Chesson; Patrick S Sullivan; Cynthia Lyles; Kyle T Bernstein; Samuel M Jenness Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; John A Fleishman; Amanda E Su; Bethany K Berkowitz; Richard D Moore; Rochelle P Walensky; Jessica E Becker; Cindy Voss; A David Paltiel; Milton C Weinstein; Kenneth A Freedberg; Kelly A Gebo; Elena Losina Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M L Kamb; M Fishbein; J M Douglas; F Rhodes; J Rogers; G Bolan; J Zenilman; T Hoxworth; C K Malotte; M Iatesta; C Kent; A Lentz; S Graziano; R H Byers; T A Peterman Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lee Warner; Jeffrey D Klausner; Cornelis A Rietmeijer; C Kevin Malotte; Lydia O'Donnell; Andrew D Margolis; Gregory L Greenwood; Doug Richardson; Shelley Vrungos; Carl R O'Donnell; Craig B Borkowf Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mary Spink Neumann; Aaron Plant; Andrew D Margolis; Craig B Borkowf; C Kevin Malotte; Cornelis A Rietmeijer; Stephen A Flores; Lydia O'Donnell; Susan Robilotto; Athi Myint-U; Jorge A Montoya; Marjan Javanbakht; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marion Albouy; Maud Parthenay; Maeva Nogues; Agathe Leyris; Léa Degorce; Zacharie Barthelemy; Diana Rafidison; Anne-Sophie Gourgues; Virginie Migeot; Jean Pylouster; Antoine Dupuis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 4.614