Xiuting Mo1,2, Ruoyan Gai Tobe1,3, Yoshimitsu Takahashi2, Naoko Arata4, Tippawan Liabsuetrakul5, Takeo Nakayama2, Rintaro Mori1. 1. Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development. 2. Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health. 3. Department of Empirical Social Security Research, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. 4. Division of Women's Health and Reproductive Endocrinology, National Center for Child Health and Development. 5. Epidemiology Unit, Prince of Songkla University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to find evidence of the cost-effectiveness of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening and assess the quality of current economic evaluations, which have shown different conclusions with a variation in screening methods, data sources, outcome indicators, and implementation in diverse organizational contexts. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Health Technology Assessment, database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database databases were searched through June 2019. Studies on economic evaluation reporting both cost and health outcomes of GDM screening programs in English language were selected, and the quality of the studies was assessed using Drummond's checklist. The general characteristics, main assumptions, and results of the economic evaluations were summarized. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 eligible economic evaluations with different screening strategies compared in different settings and perspectives. The selected papers scored 81% (68-97%) on the items in Drummond's checklist on average. In general, a screening program is cost-effective or even dominant over no screening. The one-step screening, with more cases detected, is more likely to be cost-effective than the two-step screening. Universal screening is more likely to be cost-effective than screening targeting the high-risk population. Parameters affecting cost-effectiveness include: diagnosis criteria, epidemiological characteristics of the population, efficacy of screening and treatment, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies found GDM screening to be cost-effective, though uncertainties remain due to many factors. The quality assessment identified weaknesses in the economic evaluations in terms of integrating existing data, measuring costs and consequences, analyzing perspectives, and adjusting for uncertainties.
BACKGROUND: This study aims to find evidence of the cost-effectiveness of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening and assess the quality of current economic evaluations, which have shown different conclusions with a variation in screening methods, data sources, outcome indicators, and implementation in diverse organizational contexts. METHODS: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Health Technology Assessment, database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database databases were searched through June 2019. Studies on economic evaluation reporting both cost and health outcomes of GDM screening programs in English language were selected, and the quality of the studies was assessed using Drummond's checklist. The general characteristics, main assumptions, and results of the economic evaluations were summarized. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 eligible economic evaluations with different screening strategies compared in different settings and perspectives. The selected papers scored 81% (68-97%) on the items in Drummond's checklist on average. In general, a screening program is cost-effective or even dominant over no screening. The one-step screening, with more cases detected, is more likely to be cost-effective than the two-step screening. Universal screening is more likely to be cost-effective than screening targeting the high-risk population. Parameters affecting cost-effectiveness include: diagnosis criteria, epidemiological characteristics of the population, efficacy of screening and treatment, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies found GDM screening to be cost-effective, though uncertainties remain due to many factors. The quality assessment identified weaknesses in the economic evaluations in terms of integrating existing data, measuring costs and consequences, analyzing perspectives, and adjusting for uncertainties.