International Journal of STD & AIDS > Volume 13, Number 6 > Pp. 384-392

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bedimo, A. L. Articles by Farley, T. A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original Articles

Condom distribution: a cost–utility analysis

Ariane Lisann Bedimo, Steven D Pinkerton, Deborah A Cohen, Bradley Gray and Thomas A Farley

Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans; Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans; School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy Analysis, Institute for Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago; Department of Community Health Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, New Orleans

Objective: To explore the cost-effectiveness of a condom distribution programme. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of a social marketing campaign in which over 33 million condoms were made freely available throughout Louisiana. Surveys among 275,000 African Americans showed that condom use increased by 30%. Based on the estimated cost of the intervention and costs of HIV/AIDS-associated medical treatment, we estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved, and number of HIV infections averted by the programme. Results: The programme was estimated to prevent 170 HIV infections and save 1909 QALYs. Over $33 million in medical care costs were estimated to be averted, resulting in cost savings. Sensitivity analyses showed that these results were quite stable over a range of estimates for the main parameters. Condom increases as small as 2.7% were still cost-saving. Conclusion: Condom distribution is a community-level HIV prevention intervention that has the potential to reach large segments of the general population, thereby averting significant numbers of HIV infections and associated medical costs. The intervention is easy to scale up to large populations or down to small populations. The financial and health benefits of condom social marketing support making it a routine component of HIV prevention services nationally.

Key Words: CONDOMS • SOCIAL MARKETING • COST-EFFECTIVENESS • COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS • HIV PREVENTION

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. J. Neumann, P. D. Jacobson, and J. A. Palmer Measuring the Value of Public Health Systems: The Disconnect Between Health Economists and Public Health Practitioners Am J Public Health, December 1, 2008; 98(12): 2173 - 2180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Fielding, C. G. Husten, J. H. Richland, J. T. Cohen, P. J. Neumann, and M. C. Weinstein Does Preventive Care Save Money? N. Engl. J. Med., June 26, 2008; 358(26): 2847 - 2848. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. K. Ateka and D. R. Lairson School-Based HIV/STD Prevention Programs: Do Benefits Justify Costs? J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care (Chic Ill), February 1, 2008; 7(1): 46 - 51. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hornberger, M. Holodniy, K. Robertus, M. Winnike, E. Gibson, and E. Verhulst A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for Public Policy Med Decis Making, December 1, 2007; 27(6): 789 - 821. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L Barham, D Lewis, and N Latimer One to one interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections and under the age of 18 conceptions: a systematic review of the economic evaluations Sex Transm Inf, October 1, 2007; 83(6): 441 - 446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Cohen, S.-Y. Wu, and T. A. Farley HIV PREVENTION CASE MANAGEMENT IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE Am J Public Health, March 1, 2006; 96(3): 400 - 401. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. P. Johnson-Masotti, P. W. Laud, R. G. Hoffmann, M. J. Hayat, and S. D. Pinkerton A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention Med Decis Making, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 634 - 653. [Abstract] [PDF]