Neonatal hearing screening: modelling cost and effectiveness of hospital- and community-based screening

Eva Grill, Kai Uus, Franz Hessel, Linda Davies, Rod S Taylor, Juergen Wasem, John Bamford, Eva Grill, Kai Uus, Franz Hessel, Linda Davies, Rod S Taylor, Juergen Wasem, John Bamford

Abstract

Background: Children with congenital hearing impairment benefit from early detection and management of their hearing loss. These and related considerations led to the recommendation of universal newborn hearing screening. In 2001 the first phase of a national Newborn Hearing Screening Programme (NHSP) was implemented in England. Objective of this study was to assess costs and effectiveness for hospital and community-based newborn hearing screening systems in England based on data from this first phase with regard to the effects of alterations to parameter values.

Design: Clinical effectiveness analysis using a Markov Model.

Outcome measure: quality weighted detected child months (QCM).

Results: Both hospital and community programmes yielded 794 QCM at the age of 6 months with total costs of 3,690,000 pound sterling per 100,000 screened children in hospital and 3,340,000 pound sterling in community. Simulated costs would be lower in hospital in 48% of the trials. Any statistically significant difference between hospital and community in prevalence, test sensitivity, test specificity and costs would result in significant differences in cost-effectiveness between hospital and community.

Conclusion: This modelling exercise informs decision makers by a quantitative projection of available data and the explicit and transparent statements about assumptions and the degree of uncertainty. Further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness should focus on the potential differences in test parameters and prevalence in these two settings.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Model figure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Costs and effectiveness of screening in hospital and community sites. Results of probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation (1000 trials).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Incremental costs between hospital and community sites, Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 trials. Negative incremental costs indicate higher costs in community sites. The solid dot shows the base case result.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. This shows the probability that one setting is more cost-effective than another for a given ceiling value and for the assumption that prevalence in hospital sites is higher than in community sites. QCM = quality weighed detected child months.

References

    1. Fortnum H, Davis A. Epidemiology of permanent childhood hearing impairment in Trent Region. 1985-1993. Br J Audiol. 1997;31:409–446.
    1. Maki-Torkko EM, Lindholm PK, Vayrynen MRH, Leisti JT, Sorri M. Epidemiology of moderate to profound hearing impairments in northern Finland: any changes in ten years? Scand Audiol. 1998;27:95–103. doi: 10.1080/010503998420333.
    1. Parving A, Hauch AM. Permanent childhood hearing impairment - some cross-sectional characteristics from a surveillance program. International Pediatrics. 2001;16:1–5.
    1. Markides A. Age at fitting of hearing aids and speech intellegibility. Br J Audiol. 1986;20:165–167.
    1. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coulter DK, Mehl A. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1161–1171. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.5.1161.
    1. Finitzo T, Albright K, O'Neal J. The newborn with hearing loss: Detection in the nursery. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1452–1460. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.6.1452.
    1. Vohr BR, Carty LM, Moore PE, Letourneau K. The Rhode Island Hearing Assessment Program: Experience with statewide hearing screening (1993-1996). J Pediatrics. 1998;133:353–357. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(98)70268-9.
    1. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Apuzzo MRL. The development of deaf and hard of hearing children identified early through the high-risk registry. American Annals of the Deaf. 1998;143:416–424.
    1. Davis A, Hind S. The newborn hearing screening programme in England. Int J Pediatr Otolaryngol. 2003;67S1:S193–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.08.024.
    1. Grill E, Hessel F, Siebert U, Schnell-Inderst P, Kunze S, Nickisch A, Wasem J. Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different newborn hearing strategies. A decision analysis. BMC Public Health. 2005;5
    1. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Jama. 1996;276:1253–1258. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.15.1253.
    1. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322–338.
    1. Arbeitsgruppe Health Technology Assessment Neugeborenenhorscreening . In: Horscreening fur Neugeborene. Horscreening fur Neugeborene : ein Health-Technology-Assessment der medizinischen Effektivitat und der okonomischen Effizienz. Deutsche Agentur fur Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts fur Medizinische Dokumentation und Information, editor. Niebull , ; 2004.
    1. Bornschein B, Grill E, Brockmeier SJ, von Kries R. Diagnosezeitpunkt spracherwerbsrelevanter frühkindlicher Schwerhörigkeit in Südbayern. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie. 2003;34:443–445.
    1. Laird NM, Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:5–30.
    1. Netten A, Rees T, Harrison G. Unit costs of health and social care 2001. Canterbury , The University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU); 2001.
    1. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, Martin MA. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–193.
    1. Davies A, Buxton MJ, Patterson DL, Webster-King J. Anti-coagulant monitoring service delivery: a comparison of costs of hospital and community outreach clinics. Clin Lab Haematol. 2000;22:33–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2257.2000.00282.x.
    1. Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:95–109.
    1. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:S65–S80.
    1. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econom. 1998;7:723–740. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723::AID-HEC392>;2-O.
    1. Löthgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000;9:623–630. doi: 10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<623::AID-HEC539>;2-V.
    1. Keren R, Helfand M, Homer C, McPhillips H, Lieu TA. Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Statewide Universal Newborn Hearing Screening. Pediatrics. 2002;110:855–864. doi: 10.1542/peds.110.5.855.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever