Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness of Field Follow-up for Patients with Chlamydia trachomatis lnfection in a Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinic
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A sub-group analysis suggested that provider-assisted referral may increase the number of partners treated with non-gonococcal urethritis.
“although a sub-group analysis suggested that provider-assisted referral may increase the number of partners treated with non-gonococcal urethritis (104).”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Althaus, C. L., Turner, K. M., Mercer, C. H., Auguste, P., Roberts, T. E., Bell, G., Herzog, S. A., Cassell, J. A., Edmunds, W. J., White, P. J., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18020 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
- 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)
- ORCID
- JONES, ROBERT B.
- 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