Cited by 75Reproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsSex work and related issues

Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness of Field Follow-up for Patients with Chlamydia trachomatis lnfection in a Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinic

KATZ, BARRY P., DANOS, C. SCOTT, QUINN, TIMOTHY S., CAINE, VIRGINIA, JONES, ROBERT B.·1988·Sexually Transmitted Diseases

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007435-198801000-00003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Authors
KATZ, B. P., DANOS, C. S., QUINN, T. S., CAINE, V., & JONES, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Venue
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Published
1988-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
11-16
ISSN
0148-5717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984524252
Cited by
75
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p01ai020110-06)
  • U.S. Public Health Service
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P01 AI-20110)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
Keywords
Chlamydia trachomatis, contact tracing, non-gonococcal urethritis, partner notification, reminder systems, self-referral, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Chlamydia Infections, Chlamydia trachomatis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Efficiency, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Referral and Consultation, Sexual Partners, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Urethritis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review