These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The economics of screening infants at risk of hearing impairment: an international analysis.
    Author: Burke MJ, Shenton RC, Taylor MJ.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2012 Feb; 76(2):212-8. PubMed ID: 22129917.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Hearing impairment in children across the world constitutes a particularly serious obstacle to their optimal development and education, including language acquisition. Around 0.5-6 in every 1000 neonates and infants have congenital or early childhood onset sensorineural deafness or severe-to-profound hearing impairment, with significant consequences. Therefore, early detection is a vitally important element in providing appropriate support for deaf and hearing-impaired babies that will help them enjoy equal opportunities in society alongside all other children. This analysis estimates the costs and effectiveness of various interventions to screen infants at risk of hearing impairment. METHODS: The economic analysis used a decision tree approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening strategies. Two unique models were built to capture different strategic screening decisions. Firstly, the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) was compared to selective screening of newborns with risk factors. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness of providing a one-stage screening process vs. a two-stage screening process was investigated. RESULTS: Two countries, the United Kingdom and India, were used as case studies to illustrate the likely cost outcomes associated with the various strategies to diagnose hearing loss in infants. In the UK, the universal strategy incurs a further cost of approximately £2.3 million but detected an extra 63 cases. An incremental cost per case detected of £36,181 was estimated. The estimated economic burden was substantially higher in India when adopting a universal strategy due to the higher baseline prevalence of hearing loss. The one-stage screening strategy accumulated an additional 13,480 and 13,432 extra cases of false-positives, in the UK and India respectively when compared to a two-stage screening strategy. This represented increased costs by approximately £1.3 million and INR 34.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of a screening intervention was largely dependent upon two key factors. As would be expected, the cost (per patient) of the intervention drives the model substantially, with higher costs leading to higher cost-effectiveness ratios. Likewise, the baseline prevalence (risk) of hearing impairment also affected the results. In scenarios where the baseline risk was low, the intervention was less likely to be cost-effective compared to when the baseline risk was high.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]