Loading…
Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik
Serologic testing for syphilis is a cornerstone of syphilis control efforts, but our objectives for doing it and the costs involved are not always recognized. Tests applied to individuals with symptoms or signs may be viewed as diagnostic tests, and tests applied to individuals with no clinical indi...
Saved in:
Published in: | Sexually transmitted diseases 1996-01, Vol.23 (1), p.45-50 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-51e983aee96286cee2be7ff4f8f5a16249e4fbf73de33c9977466465ae5472a93 |
container_end_page | 50 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 45 |
container_title | Sexually transmitted diseases |
container_volume | 23 |
creator | SCHMID, GEORGE P. |
description | Serologic testing for syphilis is a cornerstone of syphilis control efforts, but our objectives for doing it and the costs involved are not always recognized. Tests applied to individuals with symptoms or signs may be viewed as diagnostic tests, and tests applied to individuals with no clinical indications for testing may be viewed as screening tests. Infected individuals whom we detect through screening efforts are important, mostly from an individual and economic standpoint, because treatment will prevent the late complications of syphilis and thus avoid high medical costs. Because they are uncommonly infectious for others, however, they are relatively unimportant from a public health intervention standpoint. The prevalence of infection above which we should screen is based mostly on economic grounds, but is undetermined. We intuitively recognize such a threshold, however, when we use epidemiologic markers to restrict our efforts to groups in whom we think the yield is worth the effort (i.e., targeted [focused] screening). In deciding whether to institute or increase screening efforts for syphilis, we must consider not only the dollar costs of these efforts, but also the opportunity costs (i.e., what programs we will forgo so that we can devote our resources to the increased efforts). Similarly, because syphilis is not the only priority with which governments, health departments, and sexually transmitted disease programs must contend, any broader plan to significantly enhance syphilis control must acknowledge this reality and show the benefit, economic and otherwise, of its adoption. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00007435-199601000-00010 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78122857</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44964761</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44964761</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-51e983aee96286cee2be7ff4f8f5a16249e4fbf73de33c9977466465ae5472a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkFtLAzEQhYMotVZ_grAP4lNXc8_mUYo3KAitPi9pOqmp6aYm24f-e7e21oFhGM6ZM_AhVBB8R7BW97grxZkoidYSk24ruyb4BPWJYKrkgpJT1MeEV6VQRJ2ji5yXeLdj0kO9qhuS0z56mEKKIS68LaY2ATS-WRQupmK6XX_64HMxMa2PjQkwLEYxt8PCNPNiAiasY_Ct_7pEZ86EDFeHOUAfT4_vo5dy_Pb8OnoYl5Zh2ZaCgK6YAdCSVtIC0Bko57irnDBEUq6Bu5lTbA6MWa2V4lJyKQwIrqjRbIBu97nrFL83kNt65bOFEEwDcZNrVRFKK6E6Y7U32hRzTuDqdfIrk7Y1wfWOXv1Hrz7Sq3_pdafXhx-b2Qrmx8MDrk6_OegmWxNcMo31-WijWmqsxX_MMrcxHWXOteRKEvYDzPJ_tg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78122857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</creator><creatorcontrib>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</creatorcontrib><description>Serologic testing for syphilis is a cornerstone of syphilis control efforts, but our objectives for doing it and the costs involved are not always recognized. Tests applied to individuals with symptoms or signs may be viewed as diagnostic tests, and tests applied to individuals with no clinical indications for testing may be viewed as screening tests. Infected individuals whom we detect through screening efforts are important, mostly from an individual and economic standpoint, because treatment will prevent the late complications of syphilis and thus avoid high medical costs. Because they are uncommonly infectious for others, however, they are relatively unimportant from a public health intervention standpoint. The prevalence of infection above which we should screen is based mostly on economic grounds, but is undetermined. We intuitively recognize such a threshold, however, when we use epidemiologic markers to restrict our efforts to groups in whom we think the yield is worth the effort (i.e., targeted [focused] screening). In deciding whether to institute or increase screening efforts for syphilis, we must consider not only the dollar costs of these efforts, but also the opportunity costs (i.e., what programs we will forgo so that we can devote our resources to the increased efforts). Similarly, because syphilis is not the only priority with which governments, health departments, and sexually transmitted disease programs must contend, any broader plan to significantly enhance syphilis control must acknowledge this reality and show the benefit, economic and otherwise, of its adoption.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-5717</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-4521</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00007435-199601000-00010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8801642</identifier><identifier>CODEN: STRDDM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott-Raven Publishers</publisher><subject>Bacterial diseases ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Female ; Health Resources ; Human bacterial diseases ; Humans ; Infectious diseases ; Mass Screening - economics ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Original Articles ; Pregnancy ; Prevalence ; Serologic Tests ; Syphilis - epidemiology ; Syphilis - prevention & control</subject><ispartof>Sexually transmitted diseases, 1996-01, Vol.23 (1), p.45-50</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1996 American Venereal Disease Association</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-51e983aee96286cee2be7ff4f8f5a16249e4fbf73de33c9977466465ae5472a93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44964761$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44964761$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2969095$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801642$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</creatorcontrib><title>Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik</title><title>Sexually transmitted diseases</title><addtitle>Sex Transm Dis</addtitle><description>Serologic testing for syphilis is a cornerstone of syphilis control efforts, but our objectives for doing it and the costs involved are not always recognized. Tests applied to individuals with symptoms or signs may be viewed as diagnostic tests, and tests applied to individuals with no clinical indications for testing may be viewed as screening tests. Infected individuals whom we detect through screening efforts are important, mostly from an individual and economic standpoint, because treatment will prevent the late complications of syphilis and thus avoid high medical costs. Because they are uncommonly infectious for others, however, they are relatively unimportant from a public health intervention standpoint. The prevalence of infection above which we should screen is based mostly on economic grounds, but is undetermined. We intuitively recognize such a threshold, however, when we use epidemiologic markers to restrict our efforts to groups in whom we think the yield is worth the effort (i.e., targeted [focused] screening). In deciding whether to institute or increase screening efforts for syphilis, we must consider not only the dollar costs of these efforts, but also the opportunity costs (i.e., what programs we will forgo so that we can devote our resources to the increased efforts). Similarly, because syphilis is not the only priority with which governments, health departments, and sexually transmitted disease programs must contend, any broader plan to significantly enhance syphilis control must acknowledge this reality and show the benefit, economic and otherwise, of its adoption.</description><subject>Bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Resources</subject><subject>Human bacterial diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Mass Screening - economics</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Original Articles</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Serologic Tests</subject><subject>Syphilis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Syphilis - prevention & control</subject><issn>0148-5717</issn><issn>1537-4521</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkFtLAzEQhYMotVZ_grAP4lNXc8_mUYo3KAitPi9pOqmp6aYm24f-e7e21oFhGM6ZM_AhVBB8R7BW97grxZkoidYSk24ruyb4BPWJYKrkgpJT1MeEV6VQRJ2ji5yXeLdj0kO9qhuS0z56mEKKIS68LaY2ATS-WRQupmK6XX_64HMxMa2PjQkwLEYxt8PCNPNiAiasY_Ct_7pEZ86EDFeHOUAfT4_vo5dy_Pb8OnoYl5Zh2ZaCgK6YAdCSVtIC0Bko57irnDBEUq6Bu5lTbA6MWa2V4lJyKQwIrqjRbIBu97nrFL83kNt65bOFEEwDcZNrVRFKK6E6Y7U32hRzTuDqdfIrk7Y1wfWOXv1Hrz7Sq3_pdafXhx-b2Qrmx8MDrk6_OegmWxNcMo31-WijWmqsxX_MMrcxHWXOteRKEvYDzPJ_tg</recordid><startdate>19960101</startdate><enddate>19960101</enddate><creator>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</creator><general>Lippincott-Raven Publishers</general><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960101</creationdate><title>Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik</title><author>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-51e983aee96286cee2be7ff4f8f5a16249e4fbf73de33c9977466465ae5472a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Resources</topic><topic>Human bacterial diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Mass Screening - economics</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Original Articles</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Serologic Tests</topic><topic>Syphilis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Syphilis - prevention & control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Sexually transmitted diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SCHMID, GEORGE P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik</atitle><jtitle>Sexually transmitted diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Sex Transm Dis</addtitle><date>1996-01-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>45-50</pages><issn>0148-5717</issn><eissn>1537-4521</eissn><coden>STRDDM</coden><abstract>Serologic testing for syphilis is a cornerstone of syphilis control efforts, but our objectives for doing it and the costs involved are not always recognized. Tests applied to individuals with symptoms or signs may be viewed as diagnostic tests, and tests applied to individuals with no clinical indications for testing may be viewed as screening tests. Infected individuals whom we detect through screening efforts are important, mostly from an individual and economic standpoint, because treatment will prevent the late complications of syphilis and thus avoid high medical costs. Because they are uncommonly infectious for others, however, they are relatively unimportant from a public health intervention standpoint. The prevalence of infection above which we should screen is based mostly on economic grounds, but is undetermined. We intuitively recognize such a threshold, however, when we use epidemiologic markers to restrict our efforts to groups in whom we think the yield is worth the effort (i.e., targeted [focused] screening). In deciding whether to institute or increase screening efforts for syphilis, we must consider not only the dollar costs of these efforts, but also the opportunity costs (i.e., what programs we will forgo so that we can devote our resources to the increased efforts). Similarly, because syphilis is not the only priority with which governments, health departments, and sexually transmitted disease programs must contend, any broader plan to significantly enhance syphilis control must acknowledge this reality and show the benefit, economic and otherwise, of its adoption.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott-Raven Publishers</pub><pmid>8801642</pmid><doi>10.1097/00007435-199601000-00010</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0148-5717 |
ispartof | Sexually transmitted diseases, 1996-01, Vol.23 (1), p.45-50 |
issn | 0148-5717 1537-4521 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78122857 |
source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Bacterial diseases Biological and medical sciences Cost-Benefit Analysis Female Health Resources Human bacterial diseases Humans Infectious diseases Mass Screening - economics Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data Medical sciences Miscellaneous Original Articles Pregnancy Prevalence Serologic Tests Syphilis - epidemiology Syphilis - prevention & control |
title | Serologic Screening for Syphilis Rationale, Cost, and Realpolitik |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T04%3A25%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Serologic%20Screening%20for%20Syphilis%20Rationale,%20Cost,%20and%20Realpolitik&rft.jtitle=Sexually%20transmitted%20diseases&rft.au=SCHMID,%20GEORGE%20P.&rft.date=1996-01-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=45-50&rft.issn=0148-5717&rft.eissn=1537-4521&rft.coden=STRDDM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00007435-199601000-00010&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44964761%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-51e983aee96286cee2be7ff4f8f5a16249e4fbf73de33c9977466465ae5472a93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78122857&rft_id=info:pmid/8801642&rft_jstor_id=44964761&rfr_iscdi=true |