Literature DB >> 8717598

Justifying prenatal screening and genetic amniocentesis programs by cost-effectiveness analyses: a re-evaluation.

T G Ganiats1.   

Abstract

A strength of cost-effectiveness analysis is the presentation of all relevant clinical options, variables, and outcomes and the placement of values on the outcomes. Despite success in many fields of health policy, cost-effectiveness analysts have failed to provide a complete evaluation of prenatal screening and genetic amniocentesis programs. Specifically, all published cost-effectiveness analyses of these programs at best only partially acknowledge the potential life of the aborted fetus. These incomplete evaluations not only violate some basic principles of cost-effectiveness analysis, they also produce conclusions that may be misleading. Ultimately, society must answer two basic questions regarding the use of cost-effectiveness to justify prenatal screening programs: Is cost-effectiveness analysis an appropriate tool for the evaluation of these programs? If so, then what are the outcomes of interest? This paper first shows that the current literature does not present a complete evaluation of these programs. The ramifications of this incomplete evaluation are presented from several perspectives. Finally, given the problems associated with the use of cost-effectiveness analysis, the article suggests that cost-effectiveness analysis is not yet an appropriate tool to justify prenatal screening or genetic amniocentesis programs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8717598     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  6 in total

1.  Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.

Authors:  R E Gilbert; C Augood; R Gupta; A E Ades; S Logan; M Sculpher; J H van Der Meulen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-08-25

2.  Cost-effectiveness and Down syndrome.

Authors:  T G Ganiats; S B Cantor
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening strategies for congenital heart disease.

Authors:  N M Pinto; R Nelson; M Puchalski; T D Metz; K J Smith
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis carriers: an economic evaluation.

Authors:  P T Rowley; S Loader; R M Kaplan
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 5.  Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.749

6.  An economic analysis of chromosome testing in couples with children who have structural chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  Kittiphong Thiboonboon; Wantanee Kulpeng; Yot Teerawattananon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.