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 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.

Early Detection Programmes for Child Hearing Loss in Spain: Current Practices

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

In 2003, The Ministry of Health and Consumption, together with the Autonomous Communities (CCAA), approved a minimum and basic document concerning the establishment of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention State Programmes. Since then, the Commission for the early detection of hearing loss (CODEPEH) has made several updates and recommendations to improve these programmes. The objective of this study is to carry out a comparative analysis of how the CCAA established their Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs and if they integrate the recommendations made by CODEPEH until 2017.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The programmes (or related documents) of 16 CCAA available on line or paper are reviewed RESULTS: The 16 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention strategies analyzed are different, either in the number of test to be performed, the time in which they are performed or the techniques used. More than a third of these programmes were published before 2010 and have not been updated. Otoacoustic emissions is the chosen technique as the first screening test in nine of the 16 CCAA. Only one CCAA incorporates the salivary polymerase chain reaction test for cytomegalovirus in children with altered screening test.

CONCLUSION

All CCAA perform Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programmes but the heterogeneity does not allow drawing reliable conclusions about the result of the screening process and it would be necessary to aim for unification with the elaboration of a national programme and an integrated general database.