Vidya Ramkumar1, K R John2, K Selvakumar3, C S Vanaja4, Roopa Nagarajan1, James W Hall5,6,7. 1. a Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences , Sri Ramachandra University , Chennai , India. 2. b Department of Community Medicine , SRM University , Chengalpattu , India. 3. c Department of Neurosurgery, Telemedicine Centre , Sri Ramachandra University , Chennai , India. 4. d Department of Audiology and Speech, Language Pathology , Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University , Pune , India. 5. e Osborne College of Audiology , Salus University , Elkins Park, PA , USA. 6. f Department of Audiology & Speech Pathology , University of Pretoria , Pretoria , South Africa , and. 7. g Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders , University of Hawaii , Honolulu , HI , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost and outcome of a community-based hearing screening programme in which village health workers (VHWs) screened children in their homes using a two-step DPOAE screening protocol. Children referred in a second screening underwent tele diagnostic ABR testing in a mobile tele-van using satellite connectivity or at local centre using broadband internet at the rural location. DESIGN: Economic analysis was carried out to estimate cost incurred and outcome achieved for hearing screening, follow-up diagnostic assessment and identification of hearing loss. Two-way sensitivity analysis determined the most beneficial cost-outcome. STUDY SAMPLE: 1335 children under 5 years of age underwent screening by VHWs. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 22 children referred completed the tele diagnostic evaluation. Five children were identified with hearing loss. The cost-outcomes were better when using broadband internet for tele-diagnostics. The use of least expensive human resources and equipment yielded the lowest cost per child screened (Rs.1526; $23; €21). When follow-up expenses were thus maximised, the cost per child was reduced considerably for diagnostic hearing assessment (Rs.102,065; $1532; €1368) and for the cost per child identified (Rs.388,237; $5826; €5204). CONCLUSION: Settings with constrained resources can benefit from a community-based programme integrated with tele diagnostics.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost and outcome of a community-based hearing screening programme in which village health workers (VHWs) screened children in their homes using a two-step DPOAE screening protocol. Children referred in a second screening underwent tele diagnostic ABR testing in a mobile tele-van using satellite connectivity or at local centre using broadband internet at the rural location. DESIGN: Economic analysis was carried out to estimate cost incurred and outcome achieved for hearing screening, follow-up diagnostic assessment and identification of hearing loss. Two-way sensitivity analysis determined the most beneficial cost-outcome. STUDY SAMPLE: 1335 children under 5 years of age underwent screening by VHWs. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 22 children referred completed the tele diagnostic evaluation. Five children were identified with hearing loss. The cost-outcomes were better when using broadband internet for tele-diagnostics. The use of least expensive human resources and equipment yielded the lowest cost per child screened (Rs.1526; $23; €21). When follow-up expenses were thus maximised, the cost per child was reduced considerably for diagnostic hearing assessment (Rs.102,065; $1532; €1368) and for the cost per child identified (Rs.388,237; $5826; €5204). CONCLUSION: Settings with constrained resources can benefit from a community-based programme integrated with tele diagnostics.