Literature DB >> 11896516

Newborn hearing screening: costs of establishing a program.

James Lemons1, Avroy Fanaroff, Edward J Stewart, Judith D Bentkover, Gail Murray, Allan Diefendorf.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and performance characteristics associated with the start-up phase of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs, one utilizing automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) and the other using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). STUDY
DESIGN: Economic and performance data were collected at the initiation of both screening programs. Data were collected until 1500 newborn infants were screened or until a referral rate for further audiologic evaluation at hospital discharge of less than or equal to 5% was achieved. Data collected included screening pass/fail rates, referral rates and personnel, equipment, and supply utilization. Actual costs of personnel, equipment, and supplies were used. Statistical comparisons of proportions using z-statistic with the one-tailed test and an alpha of 0.01 were made.
RESULTS: Screening in the AABR program was performed by neonatal nurses, whereas screening in the TEOAE program was performed by master's level audiologists. The average age at initial screen was 29 hours for TEOAE, and 9.5 hours for AABR. Eighty-four percent of infants was screened within 24 hours in the AABR program, in contrast to 35% in the TEOAE program. Throughout the duration of the study, the referral rate at hospital discharge remained approximately 15% for the TEOAE program. The AABR referral rate began at 8% and was less than 4% at the completion of the study. Pre-discharge total costs for initiating and establishing the programs were US$49,316 for TEOAE and US$47,553 for AABR. Cost per infant screened was US$32.23 and US$33.68, respectively. When post-discharge screening and diagnostic evaluation costs were included, the total cost per infant screened was US$58.07 for TEOAE and US$45.85 for AABR.
CONCLUSION: AABR appears to be the preferred method for universal newborn hearing screening. AABR was associated with the lowest costs, achieved the lowest referral rates at hospital discharge, and had the quickest learning curve to achieve those rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11896516     DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7210618

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinatol        ISSN: 0743-8346            Impact factor:   2.521


  6 in total

1.  Neonatal hearing screening of high-risk infants using automated auditory brainstem response: a retrospective analysis of referral rates.

Authors:  I J McGurgan; N Patil
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 2.  The cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephen Colgan; Lisa Gold; Karen Wirth; Teresa Ching; Zeffie Poulakis; Field Rickards; Melissa Wake
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.107

3.  Health economic analysis of screening.

Authors:  Christian Krauth
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-10-07

4.  What Contribution Did Economic Evidence Make to the Adoption of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Policies in the United States?

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Craig A Mason; Marcus Gaffney; Vickie Thomson; Karl R White
Journal:  Int J Neonatal Screen       Date:  2018-07-20

5.  Is Newborn Hearing Screening Cost Effective? Economic Consideration for Policy Makers.

Authors:  Fatemeh Jafarlou; Behzad Najafi; Seyed Jalal Sameni
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2021-11-15

6.  Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening.

Authors:  Astrid Langer; Rolf Holle; Jürgen John
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.655

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.