Cargando…

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

OBJECTIVE: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric visio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kik, Jan, Heijnsdijk, Eveline AM, Mackey, Allison R, Carr, Gwen, Horwood, Anna M, Fronius, Maria, Carlton, Jill, Griffiths, Helen J, Uhlén, Inger M, Simonsz, Huibert Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10149880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36205109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677
_version_ 1785035242278486016
author Kik, Jan
Heijnsdijk, Eveline AM
Mackey, Allison R
Carr, Gwen
Horwood, Anna M
Fronius, Maria
Carlton, Jill
Griffiths, Helen J
Uhlén, Inger M
Simonsz, Huibert Jan
author_facet Kik, Jan
Heijnsdijk, Eveline AM
Mackey, Allison R
Carr, Gwen
Horwood, Anna M
Fronius, Maria
Carlton, Jill
Griffiths, Helen J
Uhlén, Inger M
Simonsz, Huibert Jan
author_sort Kik, Jan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10149880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101498802023-05-02 Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes Kik, Jan Heijnsdijk, Eveline AM Mackey, Allison R Carr, Gwen Horwood, Anna M Fronius, Maria Carlton, Jill Griffiths, Helen J Uhlén, Inger M Simonsz, Huibert Jan J Med Screen Original Articles OBJECTIVE: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency. SAGE Publications 2022-10-07 2023-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10149880/ /pubmed/36205109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kik, Jan
Heijnsdijk, Eveline AM
Mackey, Allison R
Carr, Gwen
Horwood, Anna M
Fronius, Maria
Carlton, Jill
Griffiths, Helen J
Uhlén, Inger M
Simonsz, Huibert Jan
Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title_full Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title_fullStr Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title_full_unstemmed Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title_short Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
title_sort availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10149880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36205109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677
work_keys_str_mv AT kikjan availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT heijnsdijkevelineam availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT mackeyallisonr availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT carrgwen availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT horwoodannam availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT froniusmaria availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT carltonjill availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT griffithshelenj availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT uhleningerm availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT simonszhuibertjan availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes
AT availabilityofdataforcosteffectivenesscomparisonofchildvisionandhearingscreeningprogrammes