Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study

Ong, J.J., Chen, M., Hocking, J., Fairley, C.K., Carter, R., Bulfone, L. and Hsueh, A. 2015, Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 1194-1202, doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13567.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study
Author(s) Ong, J.J.
Chen, M.
Hocking, J.
Fairley, C.K.
Carter, R.ORCID iD for Carter, R. orcid.org/0000-0002-1586-5619
Bulfone, L.ORCID iD for Bulfone, L. orcid.org/0000-0001-6406-5231
Hsueh, A.
Journal name BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Volume number 123
Issue number 7
Start page 1194
End page 1202
Total pages 9
Publisher Wiley
Place of publication Chichester, Eng.
Publication date 2015-08-26
ISSN 1471-0528
Keyword(s) Antenatal
chlamydia
cost-effectiveness
screening
Summary OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of screening all pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia compared with selective screening or no screening. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness based on a decision model. SETTING: Antenatal clinics in Australia. SAMPLE: Pregnant women, aged 16-25 years. METHODS: Using clinical data from a previous study, and outcomes data from the literature, we modelled the short-term perinatal (12-month time horizon) incremental direct costs and outcomes from a government (as the primary third-party funder) perspective for chlamydia screening. Costs were derived from the Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and average cost-weights reported for hospitalisations classified according to the Australian refined diagnosis-related groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct costs of screening and managing chlamydia complications, number of chlamydia cases detected and treated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated and subjected to sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Assuming a chlamydia prevalence rate of 3%, screening all antenatal women aged 16-25 years at their first antenatal visit compared with no screening was $34,931 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Screening all women could result in cost savings when chlamydia prevalence was higher than 11%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the assumed prevalence of chlamydia, the probability of pelvic inflammatory disease, the utility weight of a positive chlamydia test and the cost of the chlamydia test and doctor's appointment. CONCLUSION: From an Australian government perspective, chlamydia screening of all women aged 16-25 years old during one antenatal visit was likely to be cost-effective compared with no screening or selective screening, especially with increasing chlamydia prevalence. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Chlamydia screening for all pregnant women aged 16-25 years during an antenatal visit is cost effective.
Language eng
DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.13567
Field of Research 140208 Health Economics
Socio Economic Objective 920507 Women's Health
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2015, Wiley
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30078355

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: Population Health
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 4 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 8 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 78 Abstract Views, 5 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 17 Sep 2015, 14:35:21 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.