Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach
- H C Boshuizena,
- G J van der Lemb,
- M A Kauffman-de Boerb,
- G A van Zantenc,
- A M Oudesluys-Murphyd,
- P H Verkerke
- aTNO Prevention and Health, Division of Public Health, Leiden, The Netherlands, bDutch foundation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Child, cDepartment of Audiology, Academic Hospital Rotterdam/Sophia Children Hospital/Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, dDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical Center Rijnmond-Zuid, Location Zuider, Rotterdam, eTNO Prevention and Health, Division of Child Health and Health Care, Leiden
- Dr Boshuizen, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Computerisation and Methodological Consultancy Unit, PO Box 1, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, The NetherlandsHendriek.Boshuizen{at}RIVM.NL
- Accepted 6 July 2001
Abstract
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 €39.0 (95% confidence interval 20.0 to 57.0) per child detected with automated auditory brainstem response compared with €25.0 (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 €1500–4000. 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.
