Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach

Objective-To compare the cost effectiveness of various strategies for neona tal hearing screening by estimating the cost per hearing impaired child det ected. Design-Cost analyses with a simulation model, including a multivariate sens itivity analysis. Comparisons of the cost per child detected were made for: screening method (automated auditory brainstem response or otoacoustic emi ssions); number of stages in the screening process (two or three); target d isorder (bilateral hearing loss or both unilateral and bilateral loss); loc ation (at home or at a child health clinic). Setting The Netherlands Target population-All newborn infants not admitted to neonatal intensive ca re units. Main outcome measure-Costs per child detected with a hearing loss of 40 dB or more in the better ear. Results-Costs of a three stage screening process in child health clinics ar e euro39.0 (95% confidence interval 20.0 to 57.0) per child detected with a utomated auditory brainstem response compared with euro25.0 (14.4 to 35.6) per child detected with otoacoustic emissions. A three stage screening proc ess not only reduces the referral rates, but is also likely to cost less th an a two stage process because of the lower cost of diagnostic facilities. The extra cost (over and above a screening programme detecting bilateral lo sses) of detecting one child with unilateral hearing loss is euro1500-4000. With the currently available information, no preference can be expressed f or a screening location. Conclusions-Three stage screening with otoacoustic emissions is recommended . Whether screening at home is more cost effective than screening at a chil d health clinic needs further study.