Advertisement

Economic Evaluations of Childhood Hearing Loss Screening Programmes: A Systematic Review and Critique

  • Rajan SharmaEmail author
  • Yuanyuan Gu
  • Theresa Y. C. Ching
  • Vivienne Marnane
  • Bonny Parkinson
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Permanent childhood hearing loss is one of the most common birth conditions associated with speech and language delay. A hearing screening can result in early detection and intervention for hearing loss.

Objectives

To update and expand previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations of childhood hearing screening strategies, and explore the methodological differences.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s (CADTH) Grey matters.

Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants and Interventions

Economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes for both the intervention and comparator arms related to childhood hearing screening strategies.

Results

Thirty evaluations (from 29 articles) were included for review. Several methodological issues were identified, including: few evaluations reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); none estimated utilities directly from surveying children; none included disutilities and costs associated with adverse events; few included costs and outcomes that differed by severity; few included long-term estimates; none considered acquired hearing loss; some did not present incremental results; and few conducted comprehensive univariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Evaluations published post-2011 were more likely to report QALYs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as outcome measures, include long-term treatment and productivity costs, and present incremental results.

Limitations

We were unable to access the economic models and, although we employed an extensive search strategy, potentially not all relevant economic evaluations were identified.

Conclusions and Implications

Most economic evaluations concluded that childhood hearing screening is value for money. However, there were significant methodological limitations with the evaluations.

Notes

Acknowledgements

RS, YG, and BP designed the systematic review. RS and BP applied the selection criteria to the identified studies. RS extracted and synthesised the data with input from BP. RS drafted the manuscript, with input from YG, TYCC, VM and BP. RS acts as guarantor for the paper and accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the review and decision to publish.

Compliance with Ethical standards

Funding

This study was a part of a Ph.D. project funded by International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship (iMQRES). This work was also partially supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (Grant no. R01DC008080) awarded to TYCC, and by the Commonwealth of Australia through the Office of Hearing Services and the HEARing CRC.

Conflict of interest

The authors (RS, YG, TYCC, VM, and BP) declare that they have no financial or non-financial conflict of interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Supplementary material

40258_2018_456_MOESM1_ESM.docx (122 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 122 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). United States Hearing Screening and Follow-up Survey 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levi H, Tell L, Cohen T. Sensorineural hearing loss in Jewish children born in Jerusalem. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(10):1245–50.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russ SA, Poulakis Z, Barker M, Wake M, Rickards F, Sounders K, et al. Epidemiology of congenital hearing loss in Victoria, Australia: epidemiología de la hipoacusia congénita en Victoria, Australia. Int J Audiol. 2003;42(7):385–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morzaria S, Westerberg BD, Kozak FK. Systematic review of the etiology of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(9):1193–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):898–921.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2333.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute of Health Economics. The safety and efficacy/effectiveness of using automated testing devices for universal newborn hearing screening: an update. ​Edmonton: Institute of Health Economics (IHE); 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ching TY, Leigh G, Dillon H. Introduction to the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study: background, design, sample characteristics. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(sup2):S4–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy CR, McCann DC, Campbell MJ, Law CM, Mullee M, Petrou S, et al. Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(20):2131–41.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054915.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolff R, Hommerich J, Riemsma R, et al. Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95:130–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoshinaga-Itano C, Coulter D, Thomson V. Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs. Semin Neonatol. 2001;6(6):521–9.  https://doi.org/10.1053/siny.2001.0075.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ching TYC. Is early intervention effective in improving spoken language outcomes of children with congenital hearing loss? Am J Audiol. 2015;24(3):345–8.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ching TY, Dillon H, Button L, Seeto M, Van Buynder P, Marnane V, et al. Age at intervention for permanent hearing loss and 5-year language outcomes. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20164274.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aurélio FS, Tochetto TM. Newborn hearing screening: experiences of different countries. Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia. 2010;14(3):355–63.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sloot F, Hoeve HL, De Kroon ML, Goedegebure A, Carlton J, Griffiths HJ, et al. Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2015;22(2):55–64.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coates H, Gifkins K. Newborn hearing screening. Austral Prescrib. 2003;26(4):82–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langer A, Holle R, John J. Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):300.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colgan S, Gold L, Wirth K, Ching T, Poulakis Z, Rickards F, et al. The cost-effectiveness of universal newborn screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment: systematic review. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(3):171–80.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ching T, Day J, Seeto M, Dillon H, Marnane V, Street L. Predicting 3-year outcomes of early-identified children with hearing impairment. b-Ent. 2013:99.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ. 2010;19(3):350–64.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neumann PJ. Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(5):308–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prager DA, Stone DA, Rose DN. Hearing loss screening in the neonatal intensive care unit: auditory brain stem response versus Crib-O-Gram; a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear. 1987;8(4):213–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown J. Screening infants for hearing loss-an economic evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46(4):350–6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    White KR, Maxon AB. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: simple, beneficial, and presently justified. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995;32(3):201–10.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Friedland DR, Fahs MC, Catalano PJ. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the high risk register and auditory brainstem response. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1996;38(2):115–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kemper AR, Downs SM. A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(5):484–8.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD. Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;124(4):359–67.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boshuizen H, Van der Lem G, Kauffman-de Boer M, Van Zanten G, Oudesluys-Murphy A, Verkerk P. Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach. Arch Dis Childh Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001;85(3):F177–81.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vohr BR, Oh W, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Gabbard S, Lemons J, et al. Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. J Pediatr. 2001;139(2):238–44.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Keren R, Helfand M, Homer C, McPhillips H, Lieu TA. Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2002;110(5):855–64.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herrero C, Moreno-Ternero JD. Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening procedures. Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hessel F, Grill E, Schnell-Inderst P, Siebert U, Kunze S, Nickisch A, von Voß H, Wasem J. Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes. Ger Med Sci. 2003;1:Doc09.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Ho GM, Fu TY, Bruna 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(11):1957–62.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grill E, Uus K, Hessel F, Davies L, Taylor RS, Wasem J, et al. Neonatal hearing screening: modelling cost and effectiveness of hospital- and community-based screening. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:14.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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(1):14–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schnell-Inderst P, Kunze S, Hessel F, Grill E, Siebert U, Nickisch A et al. Screening of the hearing of newborns—update. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2006;2:Doc20.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Institute of Health Economics. 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 (IHE). 2007. p. 102.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merlin T, Hedayati H, Sullivan T, Buckley E, Newton S, Hodgkinson B et al. Universal neonatal hearing screening. MSAC reference 17 Assessment report. Canberra: MSAC; 2007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lin H-C, Shu M-T, Lee K-S, Lin H-Y, Lin G. Reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: how and why. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28(6):788–92.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porter HL, Neely ST, Gorga MP. Using benefit-cost ratio to select universal newborn hearing screening test criteria. Ear Hear. 2009;30(4):447–57.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olusanya BO, Emokpae A, Renner JK, Wirz SL. Costs and performance of early hearing detection programmes in Lagos, Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(2):179–86.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uilenburg N, Kauffman-de Boer M, van der Ploeg K, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Verkerk P. An implementation study of neonatal hearing screening in the Netherlands. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(3):108–16.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burke MJ, Shenton RC, Taylor MJ. The economics of screening infants at risk of hearing impairment: an international analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(2):212–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huang LH, Zhang L, Tobe RY, Qi FH, Sun L, Teng Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of neonatal hearing screening program in China: should universal screening be prioritized? BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:97.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tobe RG, Mori R, Huang L, Xu L, Han D, Shibuya K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a national neonatal hearing screening program in China: conditions for the scale-up. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e51990.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fortnum H, Ukoumunne OC, Hyde C, Taylor RS, Ozolins M, Errington S, et al. A programme of studies including assessment of diagnostic accuracy of school hearing screening tests and a cost-effectiveness model of school entry hearing screening programmes. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(36):1–210.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chiou ST, Lung HL, Chen LS, Yen AM, Fann JC, Chiu SY, et al. Economic evaluation of long-term impacts of universal newborn hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2017;56(1):46–52.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen X, Yuan M, Lu J, Zhang Q, Sun M, Chang F. Assessment of universal newborn hearing screening and intervention in Shanghai, China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):206–14.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heidari S, Manesh AO, Rajabi F, Moradi-Joo M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of automated auditory brainstem response and otoacoustic emission in universal neonatal hearing screening. Iran J Pediatr. 2017;27 (2)(e5229).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rivera AS, Lam HY, Chiong CM, Reyes-Quintos MRT, Ricalde RR. The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a community-based universal newborn hearing screening program in the Philippines. Acta Medica Philippina. 2017;51(1):28.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: OUP; 2006.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schroeder L, Petrou S, Kennedy C, McCann D, Law C, Watkin PM, et al. The economic costs of congenital bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1101–12.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Heidari S, Manesh AO, Rajabi F. The sensitivity and specificity of automated auditory brainstem response and otoacoustic emission in neonatal hearing screening: a systematic review. Audit Vestibul Res. 2015;24(3):141–51.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    World Health Organization. Prevention of blindness and deafness. Grades of hearing impairment [on‐line]. Available at http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/hearing_impairment_grades/en/.
  54. 54.
    Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M. Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000. Glob Burden Dis. 2000;18(4):1–30.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Malek M. Implementing QALYs. Fordham: Hayward medical communications; 2000.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Semenov YR, Yeh ST, Seshamani M, Wang N-Y, Tobey EA, Eisenberg LS, et al. Age-dependent cost-utility of pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2013;34(4):402.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thorrington D, Eames K. Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135672.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wake M, Ching TYC, Wirth K, et al. Population outcomes of three approaches to detection of congenital hearing loss. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20151722.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):103–5.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bisonni R, Lawler F, Pierce L. Recurrent otitis media: a cost-utility analysis of simulated treatment using tympanostomy tubes vs. antibiotic prophylaxis. Fam Pract Res J. 1991;11(4):371–8.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Barton GR, Bloor KE. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128(11):1255–62.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(5):402–8.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Adalsteinsson E, Toumi M. Benefits of probabilistic sensitivity analysis—a review of NICE decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2013;1(1):21240.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. 2008.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol. 2002;12(2):160–78.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ungar W. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(3):340–51.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Stevens K. The Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D)—a new paediatric preference based measure of health related quality of life. Pro Newslett. 2010;43:11–2.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ratcliffe J. PRM125 whose values in health? A comparison of adult and adolescent values for the CHU9D and AQOL-6D. Value Health. 2012;15(7):A483.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Chen G, Stevens K, Swait J, Brazier J, et al. Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kreimeier S, Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Cole A, Devlin N, Herdman M, et al. Valuation of EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, youth version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) health states: the impact of wording and perspective. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1291–8.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875–86.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear. 2004;25(4):336–60.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Barton GR, Bloor KE, Marshall DH, Summerfield AQ. Health-service costs of pediatric cochlear implantation: multi-center analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;67(2):141–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macquarie University Centre for the Health EconomySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Related StudiesUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.National Acoustic LaboratoriesAustralian Hearing HubSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations