Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening.
Chiou, Shu-Ti; Lung, Hou-Ling; Chen, Li-Sheng; Yen, Amy Ming-Fang; Fann, Jean Ching-Yuan; Chiu, Sherry Yueh-Hsia; Chen, Hsiu-Hsi.
Afiliação
  • Chiou ST; a Institute of Public Health , National Yang-Ming University , Taipei , Taiwan.
  • Lung HL; b Department of Pediatric , Mackay Memorial Hospital , Hsin-Chu , Taiwan.
  • Chen LS; c Graduate Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan.
  • Yen AM; d School of Oral Hygiene, College of Oral Medicine , Taipei Medical University , Taipei , Taiwan.
  • Fann JC; d School of Oral Hygiene, College of Oral Medicine , Taipei Medical University , Taipei , Taiwan.
  • Chiu SY; e Department of Health Industry Management, School of Healthcare Management , Kainan University , Tao-Yuan , Taiwan , and.
  • Chen HH; f Department of Health Care Management, College of Management , Chang Gung University , Tao-Yuan , Taiwan.
Int J Audiol ; 56(1): 46-52, 2017 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27598544
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Little is known about the long-term efficacious and economic impacts of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS).

DESIGN:

An analytical Markov decision model was framed with two screening strategies UNHS with transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) test and automatic acoustic brainstem response (aABR) test against no screening. By estimating intervention and long-term costs on treatment and productivity losses and the utility of life years determined by the status of hearing loss, we computed base-case estimates of the incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). The scattered plot of ICUR and acceptability curve was used to assess the economic results of aABR versus TEOAE or both versus no screening. STUDY SAMPLE A hypothetical cohort of 200,000 Taiwanese newborns.

RESULTS:

TEOAE and aABR dominated over no screening strategy (ICUR = $-4800.89 and $-4111.23, indicating less cost and more utility). Given $20,000 of willingness to pay (WTP), the probability of being cost-effective of aABR against TEOAE was up to 90%.

CONCLUSIONS:

UNHS for hearing loss with aABR is the most economic option and supported by economically evidence-based evaluation from societal perspective.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Buscar no Google
Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Triagem Neonatal / Custos de Cuidados de Saúde / Audição / Transtornos da Audição / Testes Auditivos Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Newborn País/Região como assunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: Int J Audiol Assunto da revista: AUDIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan
Buscar no Google
Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Triagem Neonatal / Custos de Cuidados de Saúde / Audição / Transtornos da Audição / Testes Auditivos Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Newborn País/Região como assunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: Int J Audiol Assunto da revista: AUDIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan