The aim of the economic evaluation was to examine the cost effectiveness of the two screening models tested in the Chlamydia Screening in Ireland Pilot (CSIP) study: (a) Clinical Setting screening, and (b) ’Pee-in-a-pot’ periodic screening in third level institution/college settings. The methodological approach comprised of a dynamic transmission model paired with an economic model. In both analyses, screening was compared to a control strategy of no organised screening, that is existing care in Ireland.

A public health system or provider perspective was adopted with respect to costs. The analysis considered the cost of screening to the health service, and the costs of infection and complications, not any additional costs reported by young people in accepting a chlamydia screening test. Health outcomes were assessed in terms of major outcomes (MOs) averted and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

The costs of Clinical Setting screening were presented in terms of the cost per offer (€26 ), the cost per negative case (€66), the cost per positive case (€152), and the cost per partner notified and treated (€74). The costs of ’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening were presented in terms of the cost per negative case (€39), the cost per positive case (€125), and the cost per partner notified and treated (€74).

In both analyses, screening was estimated to result in fewer major outcomes, fewer QALYs lost, and higher healthcare costs compared to the control strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness analyses indicated that screening in the Clinical Setting would result in an incremental cost per MO averted of €6,093 and an incremental cost per QALY gained of €94,717. ’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening was estimated to result in incremental cost effectiveness ratios of €2,294 per MO averted and €34,486 per QALY gained respectively.

In Ireland, there is no fixed and generally agreed cost effectiveness threshold below which health care technologies would be considered by policy makers to be costeffective. Nonetheless, on the basis of other technologies that are currently funded, it is not likely that screening delivered in the Clinical Setting, given an incremental cost per QALY in the region of the €94,717 found in this study, would be considered cost effective.

’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening in third level institution/college settings may be considered cost effective if a cost effectiveness threshold in the region of €45,000 per QALY gained is used. This is open to question, however, given the current economic climate and its resulting impact in terms of imposing further constraints on future healthcare budgets. It is also important to note that this strategy would have minimal in impact in reducing overall chlamydia prevalence in the population, if not supported by general population screening and prevention strategy.

The study was commissioned by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) and overseen by the Health Research Board (HRB). It was carried out by a team from the Division of Population Health Sciences at the Royal College of Surgeons (RSCI) in Ireland, the College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at the National University of Ireland Galway, and Consultants in Public Health Medicine from the Health Service Executive (HSE). ² Ethical approval for study components was provided by Research Ethics Committees of the RCSI, NUI Galway and the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP).

A series of background studies in 18 to 29 year olds were conducted in a range of primary care settings in Dublin and Galway, 2007-09, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of opportunistic screening for chlamydia:

- semi-structured interviews with 35 women who had never been tested for a sexually transmitted infection (STI)

- similar interviews with 30 men and women who had had a STI test

- a questionnaire survey of 5685 students and 400 primary care patients

- four focus group discussions with university students

- semi-structured interviews with eight doctors and 10 practice nurses.

The most important barrier to seeking or taking a STI test was the stigma young Irish men and women associated with chlamydia and other STIs, and the fear of being seen doing this. This fear was greater among young women.

Young people, especially women, were aware that chlamydia infection was often asymptomatic and were conscious of the danger of complications such as infertility and the consequences of transmitting chlamydia to other women.

Factors that would encourage acceptance of a chlamydia screening test, which were common to women and men, were:

- normalising STI testing, by portraying it as a responsible practice that adults should engage in

- not being asked questions by staff about their sexual history

- being offered screening by younger non-judgmental female healthcare professionals

- being offered screening in private or general health care settings, where others would not be aware that they were getting an STI test

There was a high level of acceptance of chlamydia screening among young people: 95% said it would be acceptable to be offered a test, and 90% of health facility attendees and 75% of students said they would accept a test if offered.

The most acceptable setting for chlamydia screening was a General Practice where respondents were most comfortable with being offered screening by a doctor or nurse. Other primary care settings were also acceptable, whereas pharmacies were not because they were seen as public settings.

80% said they would inform their current partner if they tested positive for chlamydia, though this fell to 55-60% in the case of previous partners.

Health care providers (doctors and nurses) viewed chlamydia screening as a priority, because young people are sexually active and are at high risk because of alcohol. Providers anticipated high chlamydia test offers and uptake rates.

Providers viewed chlamydia testing as a core activity to undertake in primary care, but they would need support for partner notification and easy access to laboratory tests, especially urine-based ones.

Conclusion:

Most 18-29 year old men and women would respond positively if offered a test for chlamydia, when attending a health care facility for other reasons. They recognise the risks and the importance of their sexual contacts being tested, if they themselves test positive for chlamydia. However, sexual health services in Ireland need to minimise stigma and ensure the confidentiality and acceptability of STI testing of young people.

Prevalence studies in Ireland have detected chlamydia in 4–11% of young people [5, 6, 7], with positivity rates of over 10% in some settings [8]. Similar rates have been found in large studies in the United Kingdom (UK) [9], elsewhere in Europe [10] and North America [11]. A 2004 review estimated UK rates of 4–5% for women under 20 years in the general population, and 8–17% in women under 20 years attending sexual health services [9]. The authors of the review assumed, in the absence of data, that males had similar rates. Age under 25 years is considered a risk factor for infection in England [12]. In the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) overall chlamydia positivity rates have averaged 7.6% in men and 9.3% in women, based on a total of 370,012 screening tests reported [13].

Chlamydia screening has become more feasible due to the development of urinebased laboratory tests, which can be used in clinical and non-clinical settings, instead of more invasive and uncomfortable methods such as endocervical and urethral swabs. Urine testing is now the norm for screening men for chlamydia. For these reasons and because most cases are asymptomatic and undetected, especially in women, several countries have introduced chlamydia screening interventions [1].

A 2005 report prepared by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) [14] concluded that an investigation of the feasibility, acceptability and likely uptake of chlamydia screening in various settings in Ireland should be prioritised. It also concluded that agreement on best practice for the management of identified infections and partner notification was urgently needed. Following a competitive tendering process in late 2006, the HPSC, supported by the Health Research Board (HRB), contracted a team of population health and other specialists from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) and the Health Service Executive (HSE) to conduct a pilot study of chlamydia screening.The study ran from 2007 to 2009.

Since 2009, several articles and reports have been published internationally, including reviews and the results of screening studies, which question the case for chlamydia screening in the general population. A systematic review of screening programmes concluded that the available evidence did not justify the establishment of opportunistic chlamydia screening programmes in under-25 year olds in the general population, given methodological weaknesses in the trials cited as justification for screening [4].

A review of the three phases of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) reported screening coverage levels in the target population of only 4.8% in 2007–2008 [13]; although by 2009–2010, 47% of sexually active young women and 25% of men had been tested [15]. A review by the English National Audit Office [16] concluded that the NCSP had not demonstrated value for money, citing lack of efficiencies in purchasing and logistics. Also, models had shown that annual testing rates of young people of between 26% and 43% would be needed in order to significantly reduce the prevalence of chlamydia [17]. The recent higher coverage levels achieved by the NCSP in reaching these recommended levels is a cause for optimism, and valuable lessons will be learned from the English national programme.

However, the potential of opportunistic chlamydia screening to prevent serious morbidity (chiefly pelvic inflammatory disease in women) has been challenged by the results of an important randomised control trial of screening among young female students in London [18]. The trial found that most episodes of PID (30 of 38) would not have been prevented by annual screening as they occurred in women who had tested negative for chlamydia at the start of the 12 months.

This policy brief, which presents early findings on migrant nurse retention in Ireland, cautions against the assumption that migrant nurses are all ‘here to stay’. The findings point to the need to engage with them to better understand the dynamics of their migration and to identify the factors that might determine whether they stay or leave Ireland.