IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Olga P M Saweri
  • Neha Batura
  • Rabiah Al Adawiyah
  • Louise M Causer
  • William S Pomat
  • Andrew J Vallely
  • Virginia Wiseman

Abstract

Background: Sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Point-of-care tests for these infections facilitate testing and treatment in a single antenatal clinic visit and may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation and scale-up depends on understanding comparative effectiveness of such programmes and their comparative costs and cost effectiveness. This systematic review synthesises and appraises evidence from economic evaluations of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries. Methods: Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched using pre-determined criteria. Additional literature was identified by searching Google Scholar and the bibliographies of all included studies. Economic evaluations were eligible if they were set in low- and middle-income countries and assessed antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, and/or bacterial vaginosis. Studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. Methodological and reporting standards were assessed using two published checklists. Results: Sixteen economic evaluations were included in this review; ten based in Africa, three in Latin and South America and three were cross-continent comparisons. Fifteen studies assessed point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, while one evaluated chlamydia. Key drivers of cost and cost-effectiveness included disease prevalence; test, treatment, and staff costs; test sensitivity and specificity; and screening and treatment coverage. All studies met 75% or more of the criteria of the Drummond Checklist and 60% of the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards. Conclusions: Generally, point-of-care testing and treatment was cost-effective compared to no screening, syndromic management, and laboratory-based testing. Future economic evaluations should consider other common infections, and their lifetime impact on mothers and babies. Complementary affordability and equity analyses would strengthen the case for greater investment in antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections.

Suggested Citation

  • Olga P M Saweri & Neha Batura & Rabiah Al Adawiyah & Louise M Causer & William S Pomat & Andrew J Vallely & Virginia Wiseman, 2021. "Economic evaluation of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253135
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253135
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253135&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253135?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.