Literature DB >> 3358237

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic.

B P Katz1, C S Danos, T S Quinn, V Caine, R B Jones.   

Abstract

Unlike contact-tracing procedures for syphilis and gonorrhea, field follow-up to locate and treat patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infections has not been extensively applied in the United States. We implemented two studies to assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using field follow-up for contact of two groups: patients with chlamydial infection detected as part of a screening program and women who were sexual partners of men with nongonococcal urethritis (NGU). Of the 142 patients with chlamydial infection who had not been treated empirically, 112 (79%) returned for treatment when a reminder system was used, as compared with a return rate of 97% (259/266) achieved by field follow-up (P less than 0.0001). Among the 678 men with NGU enrolled in a randomized trial of field follow-up vs. two self-referral methods, field follow-up yielded over three times as many partners returning to the clinic for treatment as did either of the other two methods (P less than 0.001). Analyses using the estimated costs of the intervention strategies and the medical costs associated with an untreated chlamydial infection showed that field follow-up by trained investigators proved to be not only the most efficient method for locating patients with chlamydial infection and/or patients who were at risk for it, but also the most cost-effective in terms of total health-care dollars spent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3358237     DOI: 10.1097/00007435-198801000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Dis        ISSN: 0148-5717            Impact factor:   2.830


  19 in total

1.  Predictors of time spent on partner notification in four US sites.

Authors:  B A Macke; M H Hennessy; M McFarlane
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.519

2.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males: a cost-based decision analysis.

Authors:  A G Randolph; A E Washington
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Management of chlamydial cervicitis in general practice.

Authors:  D White; K Radcliffe
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  The role and effectiveness of partner notification in STD control: a review.

Authors:  F M Cowan; R French; A M Johnson
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1996-08

Review 5.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Authors:  T E Roberts; S Robinson; P Barton; S Bryan; N Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 6.  Partner notification.

Authors:  Catherine Mathews; Nicol Coetzee
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2009-05-20

7.  Sexually Transmitted Disease Partner Services Costs, Other Resources, and Strategies Across Jurisdictions to Address Unique Epidemic Characteristics and Increased Incidence.

Authors:  Rachel A Silverman; David A Katz; Carol Levin; Teal R Bell; Dawn Spellman; Lisa St John; Evelyn Manley Rodriguez; Matthew R Golden; Ruanne V Barnabas
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 8.  Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Authors:  Adel Ferreira; Taryn Young; Catherine Mathews; Moleen Zunza; Nicola Low
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-10-03

9.  Follow-up, treatment, and reinfection rates among asymptomatic chlamydia trachomatis cases in general practice.

Authors:  Irene G M van Valkengoed; Servaas A Morré; Adriaan J C van den Brule; Chris J L M Meijer; Lex M Bouter; Jacques Th M van Eijk; A Joan P Boeke
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 10.  Partner notification for sexually transmitted infections in developing countries: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nazmul Alam; Eric Chamot; Sten H Vermund; Kim Streatfield; Sibylle Kristensen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.