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

Autor:	Kik J; Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Heijnsdijk EA; Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Mackey AR; Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Disease, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden., Carr G; Independent consultant, Manchester, UK., Horwood AM; School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK., Fronius M; Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany., Carlton J; School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK., Griffiths HJ; School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK., Uhlén IM; Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Disease, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden., Simonsz HJ; Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of medical screening [J Med Screen] 2023 Jun; Vol. 30 (2), pp. 62-68. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Oct 07.
DOI:	10.1177/09691413221126677
Abstrakt:	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.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu