Smith Kenneth J, Cook Robert L, Ness Roberta B
Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2007;2007:62467. doi: 10.1155/2007/62467.
Home testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea increases screening rates, but the cost consequences of this intervention are unclear. We examined the cost differences between home-based and clinic-based testing and the cost-effectiveness of home testing based on the DAISY study, a randomized controlled trial. Direct and indirect costs were estimated for home and clinic testing, and cost-effectiveness was calculated as cost per additional test performed. In the clinic testing group, direct costs were 49/test and indirect costs (the costs of seeking or receiving care) were 62/test. Home testing cost was 25/test. We found that home testing was cost saving when all testing for all patients was considered. However cost savings were not seen when only asymptomatic tests or when patient subgroups were considered. A home testing program could be cost saving, depending on whether changes in clinic testing frequency occur when home testing is available.
衣原体和淋病的家庭检测提高了筛查率,但这种干预措施的成本影响尚不清楚。我们基于一项随机对照试验——雏菊研究,考察了家庭检测与门诊检测之间的成本差异以及家庭检测的成本效益。估算了家庭检测和门诊检测的直接成本与间接成本,并将成本效益计算为每次额外检测的成本。在门诊检测组中,直接成本为每次检测49美元,间接成本(寻求或接受治疗的成本)为每次检测62美元。家庭检测成本为每次检测25美元。我们发现,若考虑对所有患者进行的所有检测,家庭检测可节省成本。然而,若仅考虑无症状检测或特定患者亚组时,则未观察到成本节省。家庭检测项目可能节省成本,这取决于在有家庭检测时门诊检测频率是否会发生变化。