Porter Heather L, Neely Stephen T, Gorga Michael P
Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Ear Hear. 2009 Aug;30(4):447-57. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a26f11.
Current protocols presumably use criteria that are chosen on the basis of the sensitivity and specificity rates they produce. Such an approach emphasizes test performance but does not include societal implications of the benefit of early identification. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate an approach to selecting criteria for use in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) programs that uses benefit-cost ratio (BCR) to demonstrate an alternative method to audiologists, administrators, and others involved in UNHS protocol decisions.
Existing data from more than 1200 ears were used to analyze BCR as a function of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission (DPOAE) level. These data were selected because both audiometric and DPOAE data were available on every ear. Although these data were not obtained in newborns, this compromise was necessary because audiometric outcomes (especially in infants with congenital hearing loss) in neonates are either lacking or limited in number. As such, it is important to note that the characteristics of responses from the group of subjects that formed the bases of the present analyses are different from those for neonates. This limits the extent to which actual criterion levels can be selected but should not affect the general approach of using BCR as a framework for considering UNHS criteria. Estimates of the prevalence of congenital hearing loss identified through UNHS in 37 states and U.S. territories in 2004 were used to calculate BCR. A range of estimates for the lifetime monetary benefits and yearly costs for UNHS were used, based on data available in the literature. Still, exact benefits and costs are difficult to know. Both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by automated auditory brainstem response, AABR) screening paradigms were considered in the calculation of BCR. The influence of middle ear effusion was simulated by incorporating a range of expected DPOAE level reductions into an additional BCR analyses
Our calculations indicate that for a range of proposed benefit and cost estimates, the monetary benefits of both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by AABR) NHS programs outweigh programmatic costs. Our calculations indicate that BCR is robust in that it can be applied regardless of the values that are assigned to benefit and cost. Maximum BCR was identified and remained stable regardless of these values; however, it was recognized that the use of maximum BCR could result in reduced test sensitivity and may not be optimal for use in UNHS programs. The inclusion of secondary AABR screening increases BCR but does not alter the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR occurs. The model of middle ear effusion reduces overall DPOAE level, subsequently lowering the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR was obtained
BCR is one of several alternative methods for choosing UNHS criteria, in which the evaluation of costs and benefits allows clinical and societal considerations to be incorporated into the pass/refer decision in a meaningful way. Although some of the benefits of early identification of hearing impairment cannot be estimated through a monetary analysis, such as improved psychosocial development and quality of life, this article provides an alternative to audiologists and administrators for selecting UNHS protocols that includes consideration of societal implications of UNHS screening criteria. BCR suggests that UNHS is a worthwhile investment for society as benefits always outweigh costs, at least for the estimations included in this article. Although the use of screening criteria that maximize BCR results in lower test sensitivity compared with other criteria, BCR may be used to select criteria that result in increased test sensitivity and still provide a high, although not maximal, BCR. Using BCR analysis provides a framework in which the societal implications of NHS protocols are considered and emphasizes the value of UNHS.
当前的方案大概采用的是基于所产生的敏感度和特异度率而选择的标准。这种方法强调测试性能,但未纳入早期识别益处的社会影响。本分析的目的是评估一种为通用新生儿听力筛查(UNHS)项目选择标准的方法,该方法使用效益成本比(BCR),为听力学家、管理人员及其他参与UNHS方案决策的人员展示一种替代方法。
利用来自1200多只耳朵的现有数据,分析BCR作为畸变产物耳声发射(DPOAE)水平的函数。选择这些数据是因为每只耳朵都有听力测定和DPOAE数据。尽管这些数据并非在新生儿中获取,但这种妥协是必要的,因为新生儿的听力测定结果(尤其是先天性听力损失婴儿的结果)要么缺乏,要么数量有限。因此,需要注意的是,构成本分析基础的受试者群体的反应特征与新生儿不同。这限制了实际标准水平的选择范围,但不应影响将BCR用作考虑UNHS标准框架的一般方法。利用2004年在37个州和美国属地通过UNHS确定的先天性听力损失患病率估计值来计算BCR。根据文献中的可用数据,使用了一系列UNHS终身货币效益和年度成本的估计值。不过,确切的效益和成本很难得知。在计算BCR时考虑了一步法(仅DPOAE)和两步法(DPOAE后接自动听性脑干反应,AABR)筛查模式。通过将一系列预期的DPOAE水平降低纳入额外的BCR分析,模拟了中耳积液的影响。
我们的计算表明,对于一系列提议的效益和成本估计值,一步法(仅DPOAE)和两步法(DPOAE后接AABR)NHS项目的货币效益均超过项目成本。我们的计算表明,BCR具有稳健性,因为无论赋予效益和成本的值是多少,它都可以应用。确定了最大BCR,且无论这些值如何,最大BCR都保持稳定;然而,人们认识到使用最大BCR可能会导致测试敏感度降低,可能不适用于UNHS项目。纳入二次AABR筛查可提高BCR,但不会改变出现最大BCR时的DPOAE标准水平。中耳积液模型降低了总体DPOAE水平,随后降低了获得最大BCR时的DPOAE标准水平。
BCR是选择UNHS标准的几种替代方法之一,其中对成本和效益的评估允许以有意义的方式将临床和社会因素纳入通过/转诊决策。尽管早期识别听力障碍的一些益处无法通过货币分析来估计,如改善心理社会发展和生活质量,但本文为听力学家和管理人员选择UNHS方案提供了一种替代方法,其中包括考虑UNHS筛查标准的社会影响。BCR表明,UNHS对社会来说是一项值得的投资,因为效益总是超过成本,至少对于本文所包含的估计值是这样。尽管与其他标准相比,使用使BCR最大化的筛查标准会导致测试敏感度降低,但BCR可用于选择能提高测试敏感度且仍能提供较高(尽管不是最高)BCR的标准。使用BCR分析提供了一个框架,在这个框架中考虑了NHS方案的社会影响,并强调了UNHS的价值。