Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening

Shu Ti Chiou, Hou Ling Lung, Li Sheng Chen, Amy Ming Fang Yen, Jean Ching Yuan Fann, Sherry Yueh Hsia Chiu, Hsiu Hsi Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Audiology
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Acoustics
acoustics
Hearing
Brain Stem
Cost-Benefit Analysis
evaluation
Economics
economics
Hearing Loss
costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
decision model
willingness to pay
economic impact
Health Care Costs
productivity
Screening
Evaluation
Newborn
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening. / Chiou, Shu Ti; Lung, Hou Ling; Chen, Li Sheng; Yen, Amy Ming Fang; Fann, Jean Ching Yuan; Chiu, Sherry Yueh Hsia; Chen, Hsiu Hsi.

In: International Journal of Audiology, 2017, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chiou, Shu Ti ; Lung, Hou Ling ; Chen, Li Sheng ; Yen, Amy Ming Fang ; Fann, Jean Ching Yuan ; Chiu, Sherry Yueh Hsia ; Chen, Hsiu Hsi. / Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening. In: International Journal of Audiology. 2017 ; pp. 1-7.
@article{e81ddc98bc2f4279b2d8d66f22ef12bb,
title = "Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Chiou, {Shu Ti} and Lung, {Hou Ling} and Chen, {Li Sheng} and Yen, {Amy Ming Fang} and Fann, {Jean Ching Yuan} and Chiu, {Sherry Yueh Hsia} and Chen, {Hsiu Hsi}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1080/14992027.2016.1219777",
language = "English",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "International Journal of Audiology",
issn = "1499-2027",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

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

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.

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

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - International Journal of Audiology

JF - International Journal of Audiology

SN - 1499-2027

ER -