Measuring Health and Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Testing and Screening for Chlamydia: A Systematic Review

Methodological considerations in the assessment of direct and indirect costs of back pain: A systematic scoping review

Background

Back pain is a common and costly health problem worldwide. There is yet a lack of consistent methodologies to estimate the economic burden of back pain to society.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the methodologies used in the published cost of illness (COI) literature for estimating the direct and indirect costs attributed to back pain, and to present a summary of the estimated cost burden.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched to identify COI studies of back pain published in English up to February 2021. A total of 1,588 abstracts were screened, and 55 full-text studies were subsequently reviewed. After applying the inclusion criteria, 45 studies pertaining to the direct and indirect costs of back pain were analysed.

Results

The studies reported data on 15 industrialised countries. The national cost estimates of back pain in 2015 USD ranged from $259 million ($29.1 per capita) in Sweden to $71.6 billion ($868.4 per capita) in Germany. There was high heterogeneity among the studies in terms of the methodologies used for analysis and the resulting costs reported. Most of the studies assessed costs from a societal perspective (n = 29). The magnitude and accuracy of the reported costs were influenced by the case definition of back pain, the source of data used, the cost components included and the analysis method. Among the studies that provided both direct and indirect cost estimates (n = 15), indirect costs resulting from lost or reduced work productivity far outweighed the direct costs.

Conclusion

Back pain imposes substantial economic burden on society. This review demonstrated that existing published COI studies of back pain used heterogeneous approaches reflecting a lack of consensus on methodology. A standardised methodological approach is required to increase credibility of the findings of COI studies and improve comparison of estimates across studies.

Preparing for the Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Self-Test

New technology may soon allow individuals to test themselves for chlamydia and gonorrhea. These new self-tests might help increase screening, but they will also bring new issues for treatment, prevention, and surveillance. Providers will need to decide how to respond to patients who present after a positive screening test and how to approach partner testing and treatment. Research will be needed to identify approaches to increase screening using these tests. Laboratory-based surveillance will not capture infections if testing does not involve a laboratory, so new surveillance techniques will be needed. Self-tests are new tools that will soon be available. We should be prepared to use them.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.

METHODS

We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.

DISCUSSION

The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Health-related quality of life and psychosocial impacts of a diagnosis of non-specific genital infection in symptomatic heterosexual men attending UK sexual health clinics: a feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Non-specific genital infection (NSGI; non-Chlamydia trachomatis, non-Neisseria gonorrhoeae-associated urethritis) is a common diagnosis in symptomatic heterosexual men attending UK sexual health clinics (SHCs). but little is known about the psychosocial impact of this diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study among symptomatic heterosexual men attending SHCs to evaluate the psychosocial impact of an NSGI diagnosis compared with a diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae or no abnormalities detected focusing on the feasibility of our study methodology. Participants completed a computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI) including two validated measures of psychosocial impact: the EQ-5D-5L health-related quality of life and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, before diagnostic testing and 2 weeks after receiving test results (follow-up 1 (FU-1)) and a qualitative interview. We compared scores between diagnostic groups using paired t-tests, qualitative data were analysed thematically and feasibility was assessed by process analysis.

RESULTS

60 men completed the baseline CASI (75% response rate). 46 (76.6%) were eligible for follow-up; 11/46 (23.9%) completed the follow-up CASI, and 3/11 (27.3%) completed the qualitative interview. 81.7% of all participants left CASI feedback at baseline: 73.5% reported the questionnaire as 'fine' or 'very good'. Qualitative interview participants reported the study was acceptable. Compared with baseline, among patients completing FU-1, only patients with a diagnosis of NSGI (p<0.05) or CT (p<0.05) showed increased EQ-5D-5L Index, whereas patients with a diagnosis of NSGI (p=0.05) showed decreased mean Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most participants indicated study acceptability at baseline, and we employed measures to increase retention (CASI questionnaires, reminder messages and a focus on men's health), we experienced high loss to follow-up. We found that heterosexual men attending SHCs with symptoms of urethritis experience both positive and negative psychosocial impacts following their clinic attendance, which warrants further investigation.