Skip to main content
PMC home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood
. 1998 Jan;78(1):14–19. doi: 10.1136/adc.78.1.14

The costs of early hearing screening in England and Wales

J Stevens 1, D Hall 1, A Davis 1, C Davies 1, S Dixon 1
PMCID: PMC1717434  PMID: 9534670

Abstract

A survey was carried out in 10 centres in England and Wales to determine the costs of hearing screening in the first year of life. The screens that were studied were targeted neonatal, universal neonatal, and the health visitor distraction test (HVDT) or alternative surveillance. Valid data were available from five centres for targeted neonatal screening (TNS), three for universal neonatal screening (UNS), and nine for the HVDT, although only five of the HVDT screens had valid data for follow up costs.
 The neonatal costs were consistent across the centres surveyed, whereas those for the HVDT screen varied considerably.
 The mean service costs for TNS, UNS, and the HVDT at 1994 prices were £5052, £13 881, and £24 519 for a standardised district of 1000 live births.
 Three conclusions seem justified. Firstly, UNS need not be prohibitively expensive as it costs considerably less than HVDT screening. Secondly, TNS appears to be a relatively inexpensive way of improving the age of identification of a proportion of the congenitally hearing impaired. Thirdly, given the published yields for UNS and the HVDT, the results indicate that UNS offers the most cost effective overall approach with alternative systems in place to identify late onset permanent hearing losses.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (113.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown J. Screening infants for hearing loss--an economic evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992 Aug;46(4):350–356. doi: 10.1136/jech.46.4.350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Durieux-Smith A., Picton T. W., Bernard P., MacMurray B., Goodman J. T. Prognostic validity of brainstem electric response audiometry in infants of a neonatal intensive care unit. Audiology. 1991;30(5):249–265. doi: 10.3109/00206099109072889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Galambos R., Hicks G. E., Wilson M. J. The auditory brain stem response reliably predicts hearing loss in graduates of a tertiary intensive care nursery. Ear Hear. 1984 Jul-Aug;5(4):254–260. doi: 10.1097/00003446-198407000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Haggard M. P. Hearing screening in children--state of the art(s) Arch Dis Child. 1990 Nov;65(11):1193–1195. doi: 10.1136/adc.65.11.1193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Johnsen N. J., Bagi P., Elberling C. Evoked acoustic emissions from the human ear. III. Findings in neonates. Scand Audiol. 1983;12(1):17–24. doi: 10.3109/01050398309076220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kennedy C. R., Kimm L., Dees D. C., Evans P. I., Hunter M., Lenton S., Thornton R. D. Otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses in the newborn. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Oct;66(10 Spec No):1124–1129. doi: 10.1136/adc.66.10_spec_no.1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. McCormick B., Curnock D. A., Spavins F. Auditory screening of special care neonates using the auditory response cradle. Arch Dis Child. 1984 Dec;59(12):1168–1172. doi: 10.1136/adc.59.12.1168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mott A., Emond A. What is the role of the distraction test of hearing? Arch Dis Child. 1994 Jan;70(1):10–13. doi: 10.1136/adc.70.1.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Robertson C., Aldridge S., Jarman F., Saunders K., Poulakis Z., Oberklaid F. Late diagnosis of congenital sensorineural hearing impairment: why are detection methods failing? Arch Dis Child. 1995 Jan;72(1):11–15. doi: 10.1136/adc.72.1.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Scanlon P. E., Bamford J. M. Early identification of hearing loss: screening and surveillance methods. Arch Dis Child. 1990 May;65(5):479–485. doi: 10.1136/adc.65.5.479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stevens J. C., Webb H. D., Hutchinson J., Connell J., Smith M. F., Buffin J. T. Evaluation of click-evoked oto-acoustic emissions in the newborn. Br J Audiol. 1991 Feb;25(1):11–14. doi: 10.3109/03005369109077859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stevens J. C., Webb H. D., Smith M. F., Buffin J. T., Ruddy H. A comparison of oto-acoustic emissions and brain stem electric response audiometry in the normal newborn and babies admitted to a special care baby unit. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1987 May;8(2):95–104. doi: 10.1088/0143-0815/8/2/001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tucker S. M., Bhattacharya J. Screening of hearing impairment in the newborn using the auditory response cradle. Arch Dis Child. 1992 Jul;67(7):911–919. doi: 10.1136/adc.67.7.911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Watkin P. M. Neonatal otoacoustic emission screening and the identification of deafness. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996 Jan;74(1):F16–F25. doi: 10.1136/fn.74.1.f16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES