## Table 2 |
||

Syphilis screening strategies evaluated in the model |
||

Intervention |
Description |
Details |

(A) Base case | Screen every 12 months | • 20% of HIV-negative individuals screened |

• 50% of HIV-positive individuals screened | ||

• 60% of regular and 10% of casual partners of infectious index cases treated | ||

• 520 tests performed annually | ||

(B) Increase coverage of screening | Increase coverage by 10% | Same as (A), but: |

• 30% of HIV-negative individuals screened | ||

• 60% of HIV-positive individuals screened | ||

• 720 tests performed annually | ||

(C) Increase frequency of screening | Screen every 6 or every 3 months | Same as (A), but |

• Frequency of screening in population is increased to every 6 (1040 tests annually) or 3 (2080 tests annually) months* | ||

(D) Equivalent number of tests | Screen a proportion of the population every 12 months such that the total number tests performedis equivalent to (C) | To equal every 6 months: |

• 100% of HIV-positive individuals screened and 40% of HIV-negative individuals screened (1040 tests annually) | ||

To equal every 3 months: | ||

• 100% of the population screened (2000 tests annually)* |

*Note that there are 80 extra tests required annually for the screen every 3 months strategy, compared to the equivalent number of tests strategy with 100% annual coverage.

Tuite * et al.*

Tuite * et al.* *BMC Public Health* 2013 **13**:606 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-606