Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Systematic Review

The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review

Authors: Stuart J. Wright, Cheryl Jones, Katherine Payne, Nimarta Dharni, Fiona Ulph

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The extent to which economic evaluations have included the healthcare resource and outcome-related implications of information provision in national newborn bloodspot screening programmes (NBSPs) is not currently known.

Objectives

To identify if, and how, information provision has been incorporated into published economic evaluations of NBSPs.

Methods

A systematic review of economic evaluations of NBSPs (up to November 2014) was conducted. Three electronic databases were searched (Ovid: Medline, Embase, CINAHL) using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter with terms related to national NBSPs and screening-related technologies. These electronic searches were supplemented by searching the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED) and hand-searching identified study reference lists. The results were tabulated and summarised as part of a narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 27 economic evaluations [screening-related technologies (n = 11) and NBSPs (n = 16)] were identified. The majority of economic evaluations did not quantify the impact of information provision in terms of healthcare costs or outcomes. Five studies did include an estimate of the time cost associated with information provision. Four studies included a value to reflect the disutility associated with parental anxiety caused by false-positive results, which was used as a proxy for the impact of imperfect information.

Conclusion

A limited evidence base currently quantifies the impact of information provision on the healthcare costs and impact on the users of NBSPs; the parents of newborns. We suggest that economic evaluations of expanded NBSPs need to take account of information provision otherwise the impact on healthcare costs and the outcomes for newborns and their parents may be underestimated.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Centre for Disease Control. Ten great public health achievements—United States, 2001–2010. Morb Mortal Wkl Rep. 2011;60:619–23.
2.
Guthrie R, Susi A. A simple phenylalanine method for detecting phenylketonuria in large populations of newborn infants. Pediatrics. 1963;32(3):338–43.PubMed
3.
Sweetman L. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry (MS-MS). Clin Chem. 1996;42:345–6.PubMed
4.
Pandor A, Eastham J, Chilcott J, Paisley S, Beverley C. Economics of tandem mass spectrometry screening of neonatal inherited disorders. Int J Technol Assess. 2006;3:321–6.
5.
6.
Prosser LA, Kong CY, Rusinak D, Waisbren SL. Projected costs, risks, and benefits of expanded newborn screening for MCADD. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):E286–94.CrossRefPubMed
7.
La Pean A, Farrell MH. Initially misleading communication of carrier results after newborn genetic screening. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1499–505.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Farrell MH, Certain LK, Farrell PM. Genetic counselling and risk communication services of newborn screening programmes. Arch Pediat Adol Med. 2001;155:120–6.CrossRef
9.
Farrell MH, Farrell PM. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: ensuring more good than harm. J Pediatr. 2003;143:707–12.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Dillard JP, Tluczek A. Information flow after a positive newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 2005;147:s94–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
15.
Wilcken B. Expanded newborn screening: reducing harm, assessing benefit. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2010;33:205–10.CrossRef
16.
Kai J, Ulph F, Cullinan T, Qureshi N. Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(57):1–106.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, Nicholl J, Nicholson P, Tunaley JR, Virdi NK. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1(7):i–iv, 1–202.
18.
Morrison DR, Clayton EW. False positive newborn screening results are not always benign. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(3):173–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Nicholls S, Southern KW. Parental information use in the context of newborn bloodspot screening. An exploratory mixed methods study. J Community Genet. 2012;3(4):251–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
20.
Campbell E, Ross LF. Incorporating newborn screening into prenatal care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:876–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Tluczek A, Mischler E, Farrell PM. Parents’ knowledge of neonatal screening and response to false-positive cystic fibrosis testing. J Dev Behav Pedaitr. 1992;13:181–6.
23.
Campbell E, Ross LF. Parental attitudes regarding newborn screening of PKU and DMD. Am J Med Genet. 2003;120A:209–14.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Suriadi C, Jovanovska M, Quinlivian J. Factors affecting mothers’ knowledge of genetic screening. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;44:30–4.CrossRef
25.
Faden R, Chwalow AJ, Holtzman NA, Horn SD. A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:1347–52.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Dankert-Roelse J, Knol K, ten Kate L. Effects of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis on reproduction, attitudes toward reproductive behaviour and genetic knowledge. Acta Univ Carol. 1990;36:99–101.
27.
28.
Davis TC, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Bocchini JA, Bass PF, Kennen EM, Bocchini A, Williams D, Kyler P, Lloyds-Puryear M. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts. Pediatrics. 2006;117:S326–40.PubMed
29.
Locock L, Kai J. Parents’ experiences of universal screening for haemoglobin disorders: implications for practice in a new genetics era. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58:161–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
30.
Schmidt JL, Castellanos-Brown K, Childress S, Bonhomme N, Oktay JS, Terry SF, Kyler P, Davidoff A, Greene C. The impact of false-positive newborn screening results on families: a qualitative study. Genet Med. 2012;14:76–80.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, Eaton RB, Greenstein R, Korson M, Larson C, Marsden D, Msall M, Naylor EW, Pueschel S, Seashore M, Shi VE, Levy HL. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA. 2003;290(19):2564–72.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Ulph F, Cullinan T, Qureshi N, Kai J. Parents’ responses to receiving sickle cell or cystic fibrosis carrier results for their child following newborn screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:459–65.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Langer A, Holle R, John J. Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening. BMC Health Serv. 2012;12:300.CrossRef
35.
36.
37.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M, Sintonen H, Koskinen H, Laajalahti L, Halila R, Kääriäinen H, Lapatto R, Näntö-Salonen K, Pulkki K, Renlund M, Salo M, Tyni T. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94(8):1126–36.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Cipriano LE, Rupar CA, Zaric GS. The cost-effectiveness of expanding newborn screening for up to 21 inherited metabolic disorders using tandem mass spectrometry: results from a decision-analytic model. Value Health. 2007;10(2):8397.CrossRef
40.
Feuchtbaum L, Cunningham G. Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry screening in California. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5 Pt 2):S280–6.PubMed
41.
Insinga RP, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL. Newborn screening with tandem mass spectrometry: examining its cost-effectiveness in the Wisconsin Newborn Screening Panel. J Pediatr. 2002;141(4):524–31.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Norman R, Hall J, Street D, Viney R. Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry newborn screening in Australia. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):451–7.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:12.CrossRef
44.
Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2002;110(4):781–6.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Shamshiri AR, Yarahmadi S, Forouzanfar MH, Haghdoost AA, Hamzehloo G, Naieni KH. Evaluation of current guthrie TSH cut-off point in Iran congenital hypothyroidism screening program: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Iran Med. 2012;15(3):136–41.PubMed
46.
Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Biochem. 2007;40(3–4):235–41.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Venditti LN, Venditti CP, Berry GT, Kaplan PB, Kaye EM, Glick H, Stanley CA. Newborn Screening by tandem mass spectrometry for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics. 2003;112(5):1005–15.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Carroll AE, Downs SM. Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5 Pt 2):S287–95.PubMed
49.
Chan K, Davis J, Pai S, Bonilla FA, Puck JM, Apkon M. A Markov model to analyze cost-effectiveness of screening for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Mol Genet Metab. 2011;104(3):383–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
50.
Geelhoed E, Lewis B, Hounsome D, O’Leary P. Economic evaluation of neonatal screening for phenylketonuria and congenital hypothyroidism. J Paediatr Child Health. 2005;41(11):575–9.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Gessner BD, Teutsch SM, Shaffer P. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of newborn hemoglobinopathy screening from the perspective of state health care systems. Early Hum Dev. 1996;45:257–75.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Hamers FF, Rumeau-Pichon C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency in France. BMC Paediatr. 2012;12(1):60.CrossRef
53.
Lanting CI, van Tijn DA, Loeber JG, Vulsma T, de Vijlder JJM, Verkerk PH. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of the thyroxine/thyroxine-binding globulin ratio to detect congenital hypothyroidism of thyroidal and central origin in a neonatal screening program. Pediatrics. 2005;116(1):168–73.CrossRefPubMed
54.
McGhee S, Stiehm E, McCabe E. Potential costs and benefits of newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Paediatr. 2005;147(5):603–8.CrossRef
55.
Panepinto JA, Magid D, Rewers MJ, Lane PA. Universal versus targeted screening of infants for sickle cell disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Pediatr. 2000;136(2):201–8.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Sladkevicius E, Pollitt RJ, Mgadmi A, Guest JF. Cost effectiveness of establishing a neonatal screening programme for phenylketonuria in Libya. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(6):407–20.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Simpson N, Anderson R, Sassi F, Pitman A, Lewis P, Tu K, Lannin H. The cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an analysis of alternative scenarios using a decision model. Cost Eff Resour Alloc: C/E. 2005;3:8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
58.
Tiwana SK, Rascati KL, Park H. Cost-effectiveness of expanded newborn screening in Texas. Value Health. 2012;15(5):613–21.CrossRefPubMed
59.
van den Akker-van Marle ME, Dankert HM, Verkerk PH, Dankert-Roelse J. Cost-effectiveness of 4 neonatal screening strategies for cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):896–905.CrossRefPubMed
60.
van der Hilst CS, Derks TGJ, Rejngoud D, Smit PA, TenVergert EM. Cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: the homogeneous population of The Netherlands. J Paediatr. 2007;151(2):115–20.CrossRef
61.
Wells J, Rosenberg M, Hoffman G, Anstead M, Farrell PM. A decision-tree approach to cost comparison of newborn screening strategies for cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):e339–47.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
62.
Wildhagen MF, Hilderink HBM, Verzijl JG, Verheij JBGM, Kooij L, Tijmstra T, ten Kate LP, Habbema JDF. Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers. J Epidemiol Commun H. 1998;52:459–67.CrossRef
63.
64.
65.
Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22:258–71.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Autti-Rämö I. HTA on neonatal screening for rare metabolic disorders faced misconceptions and blurred objectivity. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7(Suppl 2):A17.PubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Prosser LA, Ladapo JA, Rusinak D, Waisbren SE. Parental tolerance of false-positive newborn screening results. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162(9):870–6.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Lipstein EA, Nabi E, Perrin JM, Luff D, Browning MF, Kuhlthau KA. Parents’ decision-making in newborn screening: opinions, choices, and information needs. Pediatrics. 2010;126:696–704.CrossRefPubMed
69.
70.
Moody L, Choudhry K. Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening. Health Expect. 2013;16(3):239–50.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Noke M, Ulph F. Adults’ pre-existing knowledge of cystic fibrosis and sickle cell diseases: implications for newborn screening. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(1):121–30.CrossRefPubMed
72.
73.
74.
Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Al-Janabi H, Moody A, Clemens S, Coast J. Scoring the ICECAP—a capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):258–69.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
75.
Grosse SD, Wordsworth S, Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med. 2008;10(9):648–54.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does, “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699–707.CrossRefPubMed
77.
78.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Metadata
Title
The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review
Authors
Stuart J. Wright
Cheryl Jones
Katherine Payne
Nimarta Dharni
Fiona Ulph
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0177-2

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden

Review Article

The Debrisoft® Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Original Research Article

Hospital Utilization and Universal Health Insurance Coverage: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study

Practical Application

Estimating the Costs of Torture: Challenges and Opportunities

Acknowledegment to Referees

Acknowledgement to Referees