TY - JOUR
T1 - Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening
AU - Chiou, Shu Ti
AU - Lung, Hou Ling
AU - Chen, Li Sheng
AU - Yen, Amy Ming Fang
AU - Fann, Jean Ching Yuan
AU - Chiu, Sherry Yueh Hsia
AU - Chen, Hsiu Hsi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 British Society of Audiology, International Society of Audiology, and Nordic Audiological Society.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cost-effectiveness (utility) analysis
KW - analytical Markov decision model
KW - universal newborn hearing screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84986193580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84986193580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14992027.2016.1219777
DO - 10.1080/14992027.2016.1219777
M3 - Article
C2 - 27598544
AN - SCOPUS:84986193580
SN - 1499-2027
VL - 56
SP - 46
EP - 52
JO - International Journal of Audiology
JF - International Journal of Audiology
IS - 1
ER -