Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn

Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 169-176

  Dixon, Simon ^a   Shackley, Phil ^a   Bonham, Jim ^b   Ibbotson, Rachel ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b SHEFFIELD CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO ILLNESS; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; CHILD; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INBORN ERROR OF METABOLISM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEWBORN SCREENING; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; ENGLAND; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; METABOLIC DISEASES; MIDDLE AGED; NEONATAL SCREENING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84863325221     PISSN: 01418955     EISSN: 15732665     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10545-011-9354-0     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Arrow K et al (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601-4614
2. Bodamer OA, Hoffmann GF, Lindner M (2007) Expanded screening in Europe 2007. J Inherit Metab Dis 30:439-444
3. Cookson R (2003) Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 12:891-894
4. Dixon S, Shackley P (2003) The use of willingness to pay to assess public preferences towards the fortification of foodstuffs with folic acid. Health Expect 6:140-148
5. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York
6. Hewlett J, Waisbren SE (2006) A review of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results on parents and current communication practices in newborn screening. J Inherit Metab Dis 29:677-682
7. Kai J, Ulph F, Cullinan T, Qureshi N (2009) Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice. Health Technol Assess 13(57):1-82
8. Lloyd A (2003) Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preferences elicitation methods accurate. Health Econ 12:393-402
9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
10. Olsen J, Donaldson C, Pereira J (2004) The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol 25:445-460
11. Prosser LA, Ladapo JA, Rusinak D, Waisbren SE (2008) Parental tolerance of false-positive newborn screening results. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 162(9):870-876
12. Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320:1530-1533
13. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C (2004) Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ 23(2):237-258
14. Shackley P, Dixon S (2000) Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation. Appl Econ 32:777-787
15. Therrell B, Adams J (2007) Newborn screening in North America. J Inherit Metab Dis 30:447-465
16. Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S et al (2003) Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA 290:2564-2572