MDM policy & practice · 2026
Targeted versus Universally Offered Screening in Pediatric Emergency Departments: Cost-Effectiveness.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eckman Mark H, Goyal Monika K, Casper T Charles, Palmer Chella, Reed Jennifer L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) comprise 50% of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) diagnosed annually. AYA frequently access emergency departments (EDs) for health care. Thus, the ED could be a strategic venue for the diagnosis and treatment of STIs.
OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analysis examining screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea (CT/GC).
DESIGN: Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model.
SETTING: Six pediatric EDs.
PARTICIPANTS: AYA 15 to 21 y of age seeking acute care at pediatric EDs.
INTERVENTIONS: 1) Usual care, 2) targeted screening (using a computerized sexual health survey), and 3) universally offered screening.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost in 2024 US dollars and effectiveness measured as STIs detected and successfully treated. Secondary effectiveness outcome metric: quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost perspective is the direct health care sector, and the time horizon is lifelong.
RESULTS: Targeted screening was the most effective and most costly (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $517 per case detected and successfully treated). In a secondary analysis using QALYs lost for long-term complications of untreated CT/GC, targeted screening had an ICER of $23,320/QALY. In this analysis, usual care was dominated, being more costly and less effective than universally offered screening. In subgroup analyses of female versus male, only cohorts using $/QALY, targeted screening remained highly cost-effective for females ($6,389/QALY) compared with universally offered screening but was not cost-effective in males.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Targeted screening is a highly cost-effective strategy for detecting and treating STIs in adolescents seeking pediatric ED care compared with universally offered screening, with an ICER of $517 per case detected and treated. When considering quality of life for female- versus male-only subgroups, screening for males becomes less clear.
OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analysis examining screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea (CT/GC).
DESIGN: Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model.
SETTING: Six pediatric EDs.
PARTICIPANTS: AYA 15 to 21 y of age seeking acute care at pediatric EDs.
INTERVENTIONS: 1) Usual care, 2) targeted screening (using a computerized sexual health survey), and 3) universally offered screening.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost in 2024 US dollars and effectiveness measured as STIs detected and successfully treated. Secondary effectiveness outcome metric: quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost perspective is the direct health care sector, and the time horizon is lifelong.
RESULTS: Targeted screening was the most effective and most costly (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of $517 per case detected and successfully treated). In a secondary analysis using QALYs lost for long-term complications of untreated CT/GC, targeted screening had an ICER of $23,320/QALY. In this analysis, usual care was dominated, being more costly and less effective than universally offered screening. In subgroup analyses of female versus male, only cohorts using $/QALY, targeted screening remained highly cost-effective for females ($6,389/QALY) compared with universally offered screening but was not cost-effective in males.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Targeted screening is a highly cost-effective strategy for detecting and treating STIs in adolescents seeking pediatric ED care compared with universally offered screening, with an ICER of $517 per case detected and treated. When considering quality of life for female- versus male-only subgroups, screening for males becomes less clear.