Literature DB >> 21617925

Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn.

Simon Dixon1, Phil Shackley, Jim Bonham, Rachel Ibbotson.   

Abstract

Despite the increase in the number of inherited metabolic diseases that can be detected at birth using a single dried blood spot sample, the impact of false positive results on parents remains a concern. We used an economic approach - the contingent valuation method - which asks parents to give their maximum willingness to pay for an extension in a screening programme and the degree to which the potential for false positive results diminishes their valuations. 160 parents of a child or children under the age of 16 years were surveyed and given descriptions of the current screening programme in the UK, an extended programme and an extended programme with no false positives. 148 (92.5%) respondents said they would accept the screen for the five extra conditions in an expanded screening programme whilst 10 (6.3%) said they would not and two were unsure. When asked to indicate if they would choose to be screened under an expanded screening programme with no false positive results, 152 (95%) said they would, five (3.1%) said they would not, two were unsure, and there was one non-response. 151 (94.4%) said they preferred the hypothetical test with no false-positives. The mean willingness to pay for the expanded programme was £178 compared to £219 for the hypothetical expanded programme without false positives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that there is widespread parental support for extended screening in the UK and that the number of false-positives is a relatively small issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21617925     DOI: 10.1007/s10545-011-9354-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis        ISSN: 0141-8955            Impact factor:   4.982


  11 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

2.  Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view.

Authors:  Richard Cookson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?

Authors:  Andrew J Lloyd
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Expanded newborn screening in Europe 2007.

Authors:  O A Bodamer; G F Hoffmann; M Lindner
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2007-07-23       Impact factor: 4.982

Review 5.  A review of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results on parents and current communication practices in newborn screening.

Authors:  J Hewlett; S E Waisbren
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 4.982

6.  Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice.

Authors:  J Kai; F Ulph; T Cullinan; N Qureshi
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.014

7.  Parental tolerance of false-positive newborn screening results.

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; Joseph A Ladapo; Donna Rusinak; Susan E Waisbren
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2008-09

8.  The use of willingness to pay to assess public preferences towards the fortification of foodstuffs with folic acid.

Authors:  Simon Dixon; Phil Shackley
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; David A Scott; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress.

Authors:  Susan E Waisbren; Simone Albers; Steve Amato; Mary Ampola; Thomas G Brewster; Laurie Demmer; Roger B Eaton; Robert Greenstein; Mark Korson; Cecilia Larson; Deborah Marsden; Michael Msall; Edwin W Naylor; Siegfried Pueschel; Margretta Seashore; Vivian E Shih; Harvey L Levy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-11-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  Clinical Research Informatics for Big Data and Precision Medicine.

Authors:  C Weng; M G Kahn
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2016-11-10

2.  Impact of new screening technologies: should we screen and does phenotype influence this decision?

Authors:  James Robert Bonham
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 4.982

3.  The Newborn Screening Paradox: Sensitivity vs. Overdiagnosis in VLCAD Deficiency.

Authors:  Eugene Diekman; Monique de Sain-van der Velden; Hans Waterham; Leo Kluijtmans; Peter Schielen; Evert Ben van Veen; Sacha Ferdinandusse; Frits Wijburg; Gepke Visser
Journal:  JIMD Rep       Date:  2015-10-10

Review 4.  The case for mandatory newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID).

Authors:  H B Gaspar; L Hammarström; N Mahlaoui; M Borte; S Borte
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 8.317

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.