Health Promotion Board-Ministry of Health clinical practice guidelines: functional screening for older adults in the community.

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) publish clinical practice guidelines to provide doctors and patients in Singapore with evidence-based guidance on managing important medical conditions. This article reproduces the introduction and executive summary (with recommendations from the guidelines) from the HPB-MOH clinical practice guidelines on Functional Screening for Older Adults in the Community, for the information of readers of the Singapore Medical Journal. Chapters and page numbers mentioned in the reproduced extract refer to the full text of the guidelines, which are available from the Health Promotion Board website (http://www.hpb.gov.sg/uploadedFiles/HPB_Online/Publications/CPGFunctionalscreening.pdf). The recommendations should be used with reference to the full text of the guidelines. Following this article are multiple choice questions based on the full text of the guidelines.

School-based screening for scoliosis: is it cost-effective?

INTRODUCTION: School-based scoliosis screening was implemented in Singapore in 1981. The rationale for the programme was so that conservative treatment (bracing) can be initiated early to prevent progression of curves, avoid the complications of severe scoliosis and reduce the need for surgery. The evidence for, or against, scoliosis screening and regular follow-up remains controversial. To date, there has been no formal cost analysis of Singapore's screening programme. The aim of this paper was to examine if there are economic justifications to continue with school-based scoliosis screening. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was done by comparing Singapore's existing school-based scoliosis screening and follow-up programme with the alternative of not having a programme. As the aim of the existing programme was to detect curves early, allowing bracing to be initiated and reducing the need for surgery, this analysis assumed that without the programme, students who otherwise would have received bracing and not needed surgery, would have required surgery instead. This retrospective analysis was based on School Health Service data obtained from screening 45,485 students in 1999 and 44,051 of this same cohort in 2001. Nett programme costs and health effects were computed, and a decision rule applied. RESULTS: The nett cost of the current mass screening programme was negative, while the nett health effects, albeit mostly intangible, positive; which made the programme an economically valuable one. CONCLUSION: Singapore's school-based scoliosis screening programme, which is implemented as part of a larger school screening and immunisation programme, is cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness may be further improved by targeting screening at high-risk groups, such as prepubertal females. More research is needed to quantify the positive health effects of scoliosis screening.