Proactive chlamydia screening is not good value for money

July 26, 2007

Proactive chlamydia screening for young adults is an expensive intervention that probably does not represent good value for money, concludes a study published on today.

There are two types of screening - proactive and opportunistic. Proactive screening uses population registers to invite people to be screened regularly, while opportunistic screening targets people attending health services for unrelated reasons.

In England, chlamydia screening is mainly opportunistic, but in some areas general practices registers are being used to send proactive invitations to potentially eligible people to remind them to be re-screened.

Most studies have suggested that chlamydia screening is cost-effective, but there are now questions surrounding the validity of these results. So researchers set out to compare the cost effectiveness of proactive screening with a policy of no organised screening.

Using a mathematical model, screening was offered proactively to a hypothetical population of 50,000 men and women aged 16-24 years. A dynamic model was used to give the closest possible approximation to the real sexual behaviour of this population.

Previous studies have used static models that are inappropriate for evaluating an infectious disease.

The cost-effectiveness of screening was based on major outcomes averted, defined as pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, or neonatal complications.

For screening men and women, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio per major outcome averted after eight years was approximately £28,900 compared with no organised screening. It was less costly to screen women only but also less effective, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio per major outcome averted was approximately £22,300.

Pelvic inflammatory disease was the most frequently avoided outcome.

When the incidence of major complications and uptake of screening were increased (but to values unlikely to be seen in real life), the cost effectiveness ratio fell to £6,200 per major outcome averted for screening women only.

The authors conclude: "Our evaluation of proactive population chlamydia screening, using a dynamic model incorporating realistic estimates of partner notification, the uptake of screening, and the incidence of severe complications, has shown it to be an expensive intervention that probably does not represent good value for money."
The recent economic evaluation of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England shows that opportunistic screening, which is currently being rolled out across England, is also unlikely to be cost-effective. This paper was first published in May 2007, ahead of print, in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections and will appear in print on 30 July.


Related Money Articles from Brightsurf:

The secretive networks used to move money offshore
The researchers at USC have made some discoveries about the network behind the Panama Papers, uncovering uniquely fragmented network behavior and transactions.

Leaving money on the table to stay in the game
Unlike businesses or governments, organisms can't go into evolutionary debt -- there is no borrowing one's way back from extinction.

Money can't buy love -- or friendship
While researchers have suggested that individuals who base their self-worth on their financial success often feel lonely in everyday life, a newly published study by the University at Buffalo and Harvard Business School has taken initial steps to better understand why this link exists.

More taxpayers' money for the environment and public benefit
Over 3,600 scientists from across Europe call for effective action from the EU regarding its Common Agricultural Policy.

When money is scarce, biased behavior happens faster
Discrimination may happen faster than the blink of an eye, especially during periods of economic scarcity, according to a new study from Cornell University.

More money, more gabapentin
Pharmaceutical companies' payments to doctors may be influencing them to prescribe more expensive, brand-name versions of the pain drug gabapentin, a team of researchers report in the July 8, 2019 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, and the increasing use of the drug suggests it may be being abused. 

Why money cannot 'buy' housework
If a man is handy with the vacuum cleaner, isn't averse to rustling up a lush family meal most nights after he's put on the washing machine having popped into the supermarket on his way home then it's more than likely his partner will have her own bank account.

How information is like snacks, money, and drugs -- to your brain
A new study by researchers at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business has found that information acts on the brain's dopamine-producing reward system in the same way as money or food.

Ultra-secure form of virtual money proposed
A new type of money that allows users to make decisions based on information arriving at different locations and times, and that could also protect against attacks from quantum computers, has been proposed by a researcher at the University of Cambridge.

Time is money, especially when it comes to giving
Would you be more likely to donate to charity if you could report the gift sooner on your taxes?

Read More: Money News and Money Current Events is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to