Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols

被引:88
|
作者
Vohr, BR
Oh, W
Stewart, EJ
Bentkover, JD
Gabbard, S
Lemons, J
Papile, LA
Pye, R
机构
[1] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Dept Pediat, Providence, RI 02905 USA
[2] Innovat Hlth Solut Corp, Brookline, MA USA
[3] Univ Colorado, Hlth Sci Ctr, Denver, CO USA
[4] Indiana Univ, James Whitcomb Riley Hosp Children, Indianapolis, IN USA
[5] Univ New Mexico, Hlth Sci Ctr, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA
[6] St Elizabeth Hosp, Boston, MA USA
来源
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS | 2001年 / 139卷 / 02期
关键词
D O I
10.1067/mpd.2001.115971
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate the costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening programs: transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE), automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and a combination, two-step protocol in which TEOAE and AABR are used. Study design: Clinical outcomes (referral rates) from 12,081 newborns at 5 sites were obtained by retrospective analysis. Prospective activity-based costing techniques (n = 1056) in conjunction with cost assumptions were used to analyze the costs based on an assumed annual birth rate of 1500 births. Results: Referral rates differed significantly among the 3 screening protocols (AABR, 3.21%; two-step, 4.67%; TEOAE, 6.49%; P <.01), with AABR achieving the best referral rate at discharge. Although AABR had the lowest referral rate at discharge and the highest pre-discharge costs, the total pre- and post-discharge costs per infant screened (AABR, $32.81; two-step, $33.05; TEOAE, $28.69) and costs per identified child (AABR, $16,405; two-step, $16,527; TEOAE, $14,347) were similar among programs. Conclusion: Although AABR incurs higher costs during pre-discharge screening, it has lower referral rates than either the TEOAE or two-step program. As a result, the total costs of newborn hearing screening and diagnosis are similar among the 3 methods studied.
引用
收藏
页码:238 / 244
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Hearing Screening Protocols for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening In Turkey
    Erturk, Benan Berrin
    Genc, Gulsum Aydan
    Ozkan, Soner
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED OTOLOGY, 2010, 6 (02): : 223 - 230
  • [2] Referral rates for newborn hearing screening based on the test time
    Chung, You Sun
    Oh, Seung-ha
    Park, Su-Kyoung
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2019, 127
  • [3] Audiological Risk Factors, Referral Rates and Dropouts: 9 Years of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening in North Sardinia
    De Luca, Laura Maria
    Malesci, Rita
    Gallus, Roberto
    Melis, Andrea
    Palmas, Sara
    Degni, Emilia
    Crescio, Claudia
    Piras, Maria Lucia
    Sedda, Maria Francesca Arca
    Canu, Giovanna Maria
    Rizzo, Davide
    Olzai, Mauro Giorgio
    Dessole, Salvatore
    Sotgiu, Giovanni
    Fetoni, Anna Rita
    Bussu, Francesco
    [J]. CHILDREN-BASEL, 2022, 9 (09):
  • [4] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Patel, H.
    Feldman, M.
    [J]. PAEDIATRICS & CHILD HEALTH, 2011, 16 (05) : 301 - 305
  • [5] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Wrightson, A. Stevens
    [J]. AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2007, 75 (09) : 1349 - 1352
  • [6] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Hanschmann, H.
    Berger, R.
    [J]. MONATSSCHRIFT KINDERHEILKUNDE, 2010, 158 (06) : 597 - 606
  • [7] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Wittmann-Price, RA
    Pope, KA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, 2002, 102 (11) : 71 - +
  • [8] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Horn, KL
    McDaniel, SL
    Olguin, M
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLOGY, 1997, 18 (05): : 539 - 539
  • [9] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Lahr, MB
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, 2001, 155 (03): : 421 - 421
  • [10] Universal newborn hearing screening
    Declau, F.
    Doyen, A.
    Robillard, T.
    de Varebeke, S. Janssens
    [J]. B-ENT, 2005, : 16 - 23