Advertisement

The Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Newborn Screening for Bilateral Permanent Congenital Hearing Impairment: Systematic Review

      Abstract

      Objective

      Universal newborn hearing screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment is standard practice in many developed economies, but until there is clear evidence of cost-effectiveness, it remains a controversial use of limited health care resources. We conducted a formal systematic review of studies of newborn hearing screening that considered both costs and outcomes to produce a summary of the available evidence and to determine whether there was a need for further research.

      Methods

      A search was conducted of medical and nursing databases and gray literature websites by the use of multiple keywords. The titles and abstracts of studies were examined for preliminary inclusion if reference was made to newborn hearing screening, and to both costs and outcomes. Studies of potential relevance were independently assessed by 2 health economists for final inclusion in the review. Studies that met inclusion criteria were appraised by the use of existing guidelines for observational studies, economic evaluations and decision analytic models, and reported in a narrative literature review.

      Results

      There were 22 distinct observational or modeled evaluations of which only 2 clearly compared universal newborn hearing screening to risk factor screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. Of these, the single evaluation that examined long-term costs and outcomes found that universal newborn hearing screening could be cost-saving if early intervention led to a substantial reduction in future treatment costs and productivity losses.

      Conclusions

      There are only a small number of economic evaluations that have examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening. This is partly attributable to ongoing uncertainty about the benefits gained from the early detection and treatment of bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. There is a clear need for further research on long-term costs and outcomes to establish the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening in relation to other approaches to screening, and to establish whether it is a good long term investment.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Pediatrics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Apuzzo M.
        • Yoshinaga-Itano C.
        Early identification of infants with significant hearing loss and the Minnesota Child Development Inventory.
        Semin Hear. 1995; 16: 124-139
        • Kennedy C.R.
        • McCann D.C.
        • Campbell M.J.
        • et al.
        Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 2131-2141
        • Yoshinaga-Itano C.
        • Coulter D.
        • Thomson V.
        The Colorado Newborn Hearing Screening Project: effects on speech and language development for children with hearing loss.
        J Perinatol. 2000; 20: S132-137
        • Davis A.
        • Bamford J.
        • Wilson I.
        • et al.
        A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.
        Health Technol Assess. 1997; 1
        • Bailey H.D.
        • Bower C.
        • Krishnaswamy J.
        • et al.
        Newborn hearing screening in Western Australia.
        Med J Australia. 2002; 177: 180-185
        • Russ S.A.
        • Rickards F.
        • Poulakis Z.
        • et al.
        Six year effectiveness of a population based two tier infant hearing screening programme.
        Arch Dis Child. 2002; 86: 245-250
        • Project Heidi
        Improving outcomes for children with permanent congenital hearing impairment. The cases for a national newborn hearing screening and early intervention programme for New Zealand.
        National Foundation for the Deaf, Auckland2004
        • Busa J.
        • Harrison J.
        • Chappell J.
        • et al.
        Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs.
        Pediatrics. 2007; 120: 898-921
        • Nelson H.D.
        • Bougatsos C.
        • Nygren P.
        Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.
        Pediatrics. 2008; 122: e266-e276
        • Korver A.M.H.
        • Konings S.
        • Dekker F.W.
        • et al.
        Newborn hearing screening vs later hearing screening and developmental outcomes in children with permanent childhood hearing impairment.
        JAMA. 2010; 304: 1701-1708
        • Helfand M.
        • Thompson D.C.
        • Davis R.
        • et al.
        Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Evidence Review, No. 5.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD2001
      1. System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (2011), INIST-CNRS - Institut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex-France. Available at: http://www.opengrey.eu. Accessed September 28, 2011.

      2. Grey matters: A practical search tool for evidence-based medicine (2011), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2011), Ottawa, Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/en/resources/grey-matters. Accessed September 28, 2011.

        • Craig D.
        • Rice S.
        NHS Economic Evaluation Database Handbook.
        3rd ed. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination2007
        • Schmilt I.
        • Mugford M.
        • Byford S.
        • et al.
        Incorporating economic evidence.
        in: Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Wiley, Chichester2008: 449-476
        • Drummond F.M.
        • O’Brien B.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        • et al.
        Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs.
        3rd ed. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford2005
        • Philips Z.
        • Ginnelly L.
        • Sculpher M.
        • et al.
        Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in health technology assessment.
        Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8 (iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–158)
        • Keren R.
        • Helfand M.
        • Homer C.
        • et al.
        Projected cost-effectiveness of state-wide universal newborn hearing screening.
        Pediatrics. 2002; 110 (885–864)
      3. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (Reference 17). Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing; 2008.

        • Schopflocher D.
        • Corabian P.
        • Eng K.
        • et al.
        Screening Newborns for Hearing: The Use of the Automated Auditory Brainstem Response and Otoacoustic Emissions Tests for Newborn Hearing Screening.
        Edmonton: Institute of Health Economics. 2007;
        • Granell J.
        • Gavilanes J.
        • Herrero J.
        • et al.
        Is universal newborn hearing screening more efficient with auditory evoked potentials compared to otoacoustic emissions? [in Spanish].
        Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2008; 59: 170-175
        • Grill E.
        • Uus K.
        • Hessel F.
        • et al.
        Neonatal hearing screening: modelling cost and effectiveness of hospital- and community-based screening.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2006; : 6
        • Vohr B.R.
        • Oh W.
        • Stewart E.J.
        • et al.
        Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols.
        J Pediatr. 2001; 139: 238-244
        • Uus K.
        • Bamford J.
        • Taylor R.
        An analysis of the costs of implementing the National Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England.
        J Med Screen. 2006; 13: 14-19
        • Boshuizen H.C.
        • van der Lem G.J.
        • Kauffman-de Boer M.A.
        • et al.
        Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach.
        Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001; 85: 177-181
        • Heinemann M.
        • Bohnert A.
        Hearing-screening: comparative examinations and cost analysis with various devices.
        Laryngo- Rhino-Otologie. 2000; 79: 453-458
        • Lemons J.
        • Fanaroff A.
        • Stewart E.J.
        • et al.
        Newborn hearing screening: costs of establishing a program.
        J Perinatol. 2002; 22: 120-124
        • Lin H.C.
        • Shu M.T.
        • Lee K.S.
        • et al.
        Comparison of hearing screening programs between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1957-1962
        • Lin H.C.
        • Shu M.T.
        • Lee K.S.
        • et al.
        Reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: How and why.
        Otol Neurotol. 2007; 28: 788-792
        • Kezirian E.J.
        • White K.R.
        • Yeuh B.
        • et al.
        Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 124: 359-367
        • Olusanya B.O.
        • Emokpae A.
        • Renner J.K.
        • et al.
        Costs and performance of early hearing detection programmes in Lagos, Nigeria.
        Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009; 103: 179-186
        • Uilenburg N.
        • Kauffman-de Boer M.
        • van der Ploeg K.
        • et al.
        An implementation study of neonatal hearing screening in the Netherlands.
        Intl J Audiol. 2009; 48: 108-116
        • Brown J.
        Screening infants for hearing loss—an economic evaluation.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992; 46: 350-356
        • Prager D.A.
        • Stone D.A.
        • Rose D.N.
        Hearing loss screening in the neonatal intensive care unit auditory brain stem response versus Crib-O-gram, as cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Ear Hear. 1987; 8: 213-216
        • Kemper A.R.
        • Downs S.M.
        A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000; 154: 484-488
        • Hessel F.
        • Grill E.
        • Schnell-Inderst P.
        • et al.
        Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes.
        Ger Med Sci. 2003; 1 (Doc09)
        • Herrero C.
        • Moreno-Ternero J.D.
        Economic Evaluation of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures.
        Departamento de Fundamentos del Analisis Economico: Universidad de Alicante, Alicante2002
        • Herrero C.
        • Moreno-Ternero J.D.
        A New Outcome Measure for Cost-Utility Analyses of Screening Programs.
        Departamento de Fundamentos del Analisis Economico: Universidad de Alicante, Alicante2003
        • Herrero C.
        • Moreno-Ternero J.D.
        Generalized Cost-Analysis of Screening Programs.
        Departamento de Fundamentos del Analisis Economico: Universidad de Alicante, Alicante2004
      4. Herrero C, Moreno-Ternero, JD. (2005). Hospital costs and social costs: a case study of newborn hearing screening. Invest Econ. 2005;29:203–216.

        • Herrero C.
        • Moreno-Ternero J.D.
        Estimating production costs in the economic evaluation of health-care programs.
        Health Econ. 2009; 18: 21-35
        • Turner R.G.
        Modelling the cost and performance of early identification protocols.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1991; 2: 195-205
        • Turner R.G.
        Factors that determine the cost and performance of early identification protocols.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1992; 3: 223-241
        • Turner R.G.
        Comparison of four hearing screening protocols.
        J Am Acad Audio. 1992; 3: 200-207
        • White K.R.
        • Maxon A.B.
        Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: simple, beneficial, and presently justified.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995; 32: 201-211
        • Friedland D.R.
        • Fahs M.C.
        • Catalano P.J.
        A cost-effectiveness analysis of the high risk register and auditory brainstem response.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1996; 38: 115-130
      5. Calculate the cost (2011), National Centre for Hearing Assessment and Management: Utah State University. Available at: http://www.infanthearing.org/resources/cost/index.html. Accessed September 28, 2011.

        • Kauffman-de Boer M.A.
        • De Ridder-Sluiter J.G.
        • Schuitema T.
        • et al.
        Implementation Study: Neonatal Hearing Screening.
        Dutch Foundation for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Child, Amsterdam2001
        • Wolff R.
        • Hommerich J.
        • Riesma R.
        • et al.
        Hearing screening in newborns: Systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening.
        Arch Dis Child. 2010; 95: 130-135
        • Puig T.
        • Municio A.
        • Meda C.
        Universal neonatal hearing screening versus selective screening as part of the management of childhood deafness.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;
        • CRD
        Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.
        Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York2008 (University of York)
        • Sininger Y.S.
        • Grimes A.
        • Christensen E.
        Auditory development in early amplified children: factors influencing auditory-based communication outcomes in children with hearing loss.
        Ear Hear. 2010; 31: 166-185
        • NSW Department of Health
        Evaluation of the Statewide Infant Screening – Hearing (SWISH Program): Final report.
        Kent Town: Health Outcomes International. 2011;
        • Grosse S.D.
        • Ross D.S.
        Cost savings from universal newborn hearing screening.
        Pediatrics. 2006; 117: 1101-1112