Literature DB >> 9534670

The costs of early hearing screening in England and Wales.

J C Stevens1, D M Hall, A Davis, C M Davies, S Dixon.   

Abstract

A survey was carried out in 10 centres in England and Wales to determine the costs of hearing screening in the first year of life. The screens that were studied were targeted neonatal, universal neonatal, and the health visitor distraction test (HVDT) or alternative surveillance. Valid data were available from five centres for targeted neonatal screening (TNS), three for universal neonatal screening (UNS), and nine for the HVDT, although only five of the HVDT screens had valid data for follow up costs. The neonatal costs were consistent across the centres surveyed, whereas those for the HVDT screen varied considerably. The mean service costs for TNS, UNS, and the HVDT at 1994 prices were 5052 Pounds, 13,881 Pounds, and 24,519 Pounds for a standardised district of 1000 live births. Three conclusions seem justified. Firstly, UNS need not be prohibitively expensive as it costs considerably less than HVDT screening. Secondly, TNS appears to be a relatively inexpensive way of improving the age of identification of a proportion of the congenitally hearing impaired. Thirdly, given the published yields for UNS and the HVDT, the results indicate that UNS offers the most cost effective overall approach with alternative systems in place to identify late onset permanent hearing losses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9534670      PMCID: PMC1717434          DOI: 10.1136/adc.78.1.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Dis Child        ISSN: 0003-9888            Impact factor:   3.791


  14 in total

1.  Evaluation of click-evoked oto-acoustic emissions in the newborn.

Authors:  J C Stevens; H D Webb; J Hutchinson; J Connell; M F Smith; J T Buffin
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1991-02

2.  Otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses in the newborn.

Authors:  C R Kennedy; L Kimm; D C Dees; P I Evans; M Hunter; S Lenton; R D Thornton
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 3.791

3.  Auditory screening of special care neonates using the auditory response cradle.

Authors:  B McCormick; D A Curnock; F Spavins
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.791

4.  Evoked acoustic emissions from the human ear. III. Findings in neonates.

Authors:  N J Johnsen; P Bagi; C Elberling
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1983

5.  The auditory brain stem response reliably predicts hearing loss in graduates of a tertiary intensive care nursery.

Authors:  R Galambos; G E Hicks; M J Wilson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1984 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  What is the role of the distraction test of hearing?

Authors:  A Mott; A Emond
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.791

7.  Late diagnosis of congenital sensorineural hearing impairment: why are detection methods failing?

Authors:  C Robertson; S Aldridge; F Jarman; K Saunders; Z Poulakis; F Oberklaid
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.791

8.  Prognostic validity of brainstem electric response audiometry in infants of a neonatal intensive care unit.

Authors:  A Durieux-Smith; T W Picton; P Bernard; B MacMurray; J T Goodman
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1991

9.  Screening of hearing impairment in the newborn using the auditory response cradle.

Authors:  S M Tucker; J Bhattacharya
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.791

10.  Screening infants for hearing loss--an economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brown
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.710

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Neonatal screening for hearing impairment.

Authors:  C R Kennedy
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  Preschool hearing, speech, language, and vision screening.

Authors:  J Bamford; A Davis; J Boyle; J Law; S Chapman; S S Brown; T A Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-12

3.  Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach.

Authors:  H C Boshuizen; G J van der Lem; M A Kauffman-de Boer; G A van Zanten; A M Oudesluys-Murphy; P H Verkerk
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.747

4.  Screening for congenital hearing impairment: time for a change.

Authors:  J Bamford; A Davis; J Stevens
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 5.747

5.  Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing impairment in the United Kingdom and implications for universal neonatal hearing screening: questionnaire based ascertainment study.

Authors:  H M Fortnum; A Q Summerfield; D H Marshall; A C Davis; J M Bamford
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-09-08

6.  Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes.

Authors:  Franz Hessel; Eva Grill; Petra Schnell-Inderst; Uwe Siebert; Silke Kunze; Andreas Nickisch; Hubertus von Voss; Jürgen Wasem
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2003-12-15

7.  Cochlear implants in the United Kingdom: awareness and utilization.

Authors:  Chris Raine
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2013-03

8.  Societal costs of permanent childhood hearing loss at teen age: a cross-sectional cohort follow-up study of universal newborn hearing screening.

Authors:  Maria Chorozoglou; Merle Mahon; Hannah Pimperton; Sarah Worsfold; Colin R Kennedy
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2018-02-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.