LAUSR

W ith declining public health funding and increasing sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates, 1 STI clinics must find ways to serve patients more efficiently. As remote health interventions be- come an integral part of sexual health services, it is critical that researchers assess the effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Remote health broadly encompasses medical services that do not involve in-person clinic visits. This includes not only services such as telehealth via phone or video calls,but also low-tech services that are performed away from brick-and-mortar health clinics. Examples of remote health services for STIs include expedited partner therapy (EPT), 2 mailed specimen collection kits (e.g., I Want the Kit ), 3 field-delivered treatment, and postexposure prophylaxis hotlines, among others. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for the use of remote health services, largely because of re- source constraints, worries about exposures during in-person visits, and expansion of telemedicine reimbursement policies. 4,5 We are at an inflection point where technological advances, such as the prolif- eration of smart phones and Internet access, 6,7 have improved the feasibility and acceptability of remote health services. Remote ser- vices may offer the opportunity to reduce patient burden, including nonmonetary costs like travel and wait times, which can be incorpo- rated into cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Cost-effectiveness analyses are conducted to compare vari- ous potential interventions in terms of health outcomes achieved per dollar spent. When faced with a limited budget, CEA is a valu- able tool that can help identify which remote health interventions should be adopted and scaled. However, remote health interven- tions take a variety of forms, and assessing their costs and effects comes with unique challenges. This article summarizes key con- siderations for CEAs of remote health services for STI care.