Shu-Ti Chiou1, Hou-Ling Lung2,3, Li-Sheng Chen4, Amy Ming-Fang Yen4, Jean Ching-Yuan Fann5, Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu6, Hsiu-Hsi Chen3. 1. a Institute of Public Health , National Yang-Ming University , Taipei , Taiwan. 2. b Department of Pediatric , Mackay Memorial Hospital , Hsin-Chu , Taiwan. 3. c Graduate Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health , National Taiwan University , Taipei , Taiwan. 4. d School of Oral Hygiene, College of Oral Medicine , Taipei Medical University , Taipei , Taiwan. 5. e Department of Health Industry Management, School of Healthcare Management , Kainan University , Tao-Yuan , Taiwan , and. 6. f Department of Health Care Management, College of Management , Chang Gung University , Tao-Yuan , Taiwan.
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.
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.
Authors: Rajan Sharma; Yuanyuan Gu; Teresa Y C Ching; Vivienne Marnane; Bonny Parkinson Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Ethan D Borre; Mohamed M Diab; Austin Ayer; Gloria Zhang; Susan D Emmett; Debara L Tucci; Blake S Wilson; Kamaria Kaalund; Osondu Ogbuoji; Gillian D Sanders Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-05-08
Authors: Jose Miguel Sequi-Canet; Jose Miguel Sequi-Sabater; Jose Ignacio Collar-Castillo; Nelson Orta-Sibu Journal: J Clin Transl Res Date: 2020-08-29