Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach

被引:24
作者
Boshuizen, HC
van der Lem, GJ
Kauffman-de Boer, MA
van Zanten, GA
Oudesluys-Murphy, AM
Verkerk, PH
机构
[1] TNO Prevent & Hlth, Div Publ Hlth, Leiden, Netherlands
[2] Univ Rotterdam Hosp, Dept Audiol, Acad Hosp, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Med Ctr, Dept Paediat, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[4] TNO Prevent & Hlth, Div Child Hlth & Hlth Care, Leiden, Netherlands
来源
ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD-FETAL AND NEONATAL EDITION | 2001年 / 85卷 / 03期
关键词
costs; hearing; screening; otoacoustic emissions; automated auditory brainstem response;
D O I
10.1136/fn.85.3.F177
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Objective-To compare the cost effectiveness of various strategies for neonatal hearing screening by estimating the cost per hearing impaired child detected. Design-Cost analyses with a simulation model, including a multivariate sensitivity analysis. Comparisons of the cost per child detected were made for: screening method (automated auditory brainstem response or otoacoustic emissions); number of stages in the screening process (two or three); target disorder (bilateral hearing loss or both unilateral and bilateral loss); location (at home or at a child health clinic). Setting The Netherlands Target population-All newborn infants not admitted to neonatal intensive care units. Main outcome measure-Costs per child detected with a hearing loss of 40 dB or more in the better ear. Results-Costs of a three stage screening process in child health clinics are euro39.0 (95% confidence interval 20.0 to 57.0) per child detected with automated auditory brainstem response compared with euro25.0 (14.4 to 35.6) per child detected with otoacoustic emissions. A three stage screening process not only reduces the referral rates, but is also likely to cost less than a two stage process because of the lower cost of diagnostic facilities. The extra cost (over and above a screening programme detecting bilateral losses) of detecting one child with unilateral hearing loss is euro1500-4000. With the currently available information, no preference can be expressed for a screening location. Conclusions-Three stage screening with otoacoustic emissions is recommended. Whether screening at home is more cost effective than screening at a child health clinic needs further study.
引用
收藏
页码:F177 / F181
页数:5
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   Sensorineural hearing loss in children [J].
Brookhouser, PE .
PEDIATRIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 1996, 43 (06) :1195-+
[2]  
BURGMEIJER RFJ, 1997, NAAR VOLWASSENHEID E
[3]  
BURGMEIJER RJF, 1995, ZORGPAKKET OUDER KIN
[4]  
Davis A., 1997, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V1, P1, DOI [10.3310/hta1100, DOI 10.3310/HTA1100]
[5]   INFANT VOCALIZATIONS AND THE EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF SEVERE HEARING IMPAIRMENT [J].
EILERS, RE ;
OLLER, DK .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1994, 124 (02) :199-203
[6]  
HARLAAR J, 1997, TIJDSCHR JEUGDGEZOND, V29, P8
[7]  
Kennedy CR, 1998, LANCET, V352, P1957
[8]   Screening for neonatal hearing defects European consensus statement [J].
Lutman, ME ;
Grandori, F .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 1999, 158 (02) :95-96
[9]  
MARKIDES A, 1986, British Journal of Audiology, V20, P165, DOI 10.3109/03005368609079011
[10]   Universal infant hearing screening by automated auditory brainstem response measurement [J].
Mason, JA ;
Herrmann, KR .
PEDIATRICS, 1998, 101 (02) :221-228