An analysis of the costs of implementing the National Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 14-19

  Uus, K ^a   Bamford, J ^a   Taylor, R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EVOKED BRAIN STEM AUDITORY RESPONSE; EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFANT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED KINGDOM; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEARING DISORDER; HEARING LOSS; HEARING TEST; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING LOSS; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MASS SCREENING; NEONATAL SCREENING;

EID: 33646848784     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 09691413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/096914106776179764     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Trial Group. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment. Lancet 1998;352:1957-64
2. Davis A, Bamford JM, Wilson I, et al. A critical review of the role of neonatal screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:1-76
3. Fortnum H, Davis A. Epidemiology of permanent hearing impairment in Trent region, 1985-1993. Br J Audiol 1997;31:409-46
4. Watkin P. Neonatal otoacoustic emission screening and the identification of deafness. Arch Dis Child 1996;74:16-25
5. Stevens JC, Hall DMB, Davis CM, Dixon S. The costs of early hearing screening in England and Wales. Arch Dis Child 1998;78:14-19
6. Ann Netten, Lesley Curtis. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2003; http://www.pssru.ac. uk/uc/uc2003.htm (last accessed November 2004)
7. NHS Reference Costs 2003 and National Tariff 2004 (Payment by Results Core Tools 2004). http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en? CONTENT_ID=4070195&chk=UzhHA (last accessed November 2004)
8. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-93
9. Davies A, Buxton MJ, Patterson DL, Webster-King J. Anti-coagulant monitoring service delivery: a comparison of hospital and community outreach clinics. Clin Lab Haematol 2002;22:33-40
10. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:1300-3
11. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coulter DK, Mehl AL. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics 1998;102:1161-71
12. Moeller PM. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000;106:E43
13. Keren R, Helfand M, Homer, et al. Projected cost effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics 2002;110:855-64
14. Kemper AR, Downs SM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000;154:484-8
15. Gorga MP, Neely ST. Cost-effectiveness and test-performance factors in relation to universal newborn hearing screening. Ment Retard Develop Disabil Res Rev 2003;9:103-8
16. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd edn. Oxford Medical Publications: Oxford, 1997;165-82