| Title |
Cost–Utility Analysis of A Female Condom Promotion Program in Washington, DC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-012-0174-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David R. Holtgrave, Catherine Maulsby, Michael Kharfen, Yujiang Jia, Charles Wu, Jenevieve Opoku, Tiffany West, Gregory Pappas |
| Abstract |
A retrospective economic evaluation of a female condom distribution and education program in Washington, DC. was conducted. Standard methods of cost, threshold and cost-utility analysis were utilized as recommended by the U.S. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. The overall cost of the program that distributed 200,000 female condoms and provided educational services was $414,186 (at a total gross cost per condom used during sex of $3.19, including educational services). The number of HIV infections that would have to be averted in order for the program to be cost-saving was 1.13 in the societal perspective and 1.50 in the public sector payor perspective. The cost-effectiveness threshold of HIV infections to be averted was 0.46. Overall, mathematical modeling analyses estimated that the intervention averted approximately 23 HIV infections (even with the uncertainty inherent in this estimate, this value appears to well exceed the necessary thresholds), and the intervention resulted in a substantial net cost savings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,675,396
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#203
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,618
of 162,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 162,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.