Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paltiel, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, E. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paltiel, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, E. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Notes

The Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing

Accounting for Differential Participation Rates

A. David Paltiel, PhD

Edward H. Kaplan, PhD

Objective. To understand the impact of differences in participation rates between in fected and uninfected individuals on estimates of the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening. Methods. Costs per infection detected are modeled as function of both prevalence and serostatus-dependent testing rates. Data from national surveillance surveys, seroprevalence studies, and other sources are employed to suggest the mag nitude of results. Results. Differential participation produces a near-doubling in the estimated cost per infection identified. This result is sensitive to assumptions regarding the benefits of screening for seronegatives. Conclusions. Voluntary HIV screening pro grams may incur prohibitive costs by over-recruiting people at little risk of infection. Failure to account for differential participation can result in over-optimistic cost-ef fectiveness estimates. However, the relevance of this result—and the significance of both prevalence and participation as cost drivers—is overwhelmed by what is as sumed about the benefits conferred to uninfected people by HIV screening. Key words: cost-effectiveness analysis; HIV testing; policy modeling. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:490-495)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 4, 490-495 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700415
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
M. S. Roberts
The Power and Pitfalls of Simplifying Assumptions
Med Decis Making, October 1, 1997; 17(4): 496 - 497.
[PDF]