A descriptive cost comparison of Listening and Spoken Language - South Africa versus traditional Speech-Language Therapy as therapeutic approaches for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in South Africa.

IF 1.3 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Public Health in Africa Pub Date : 2026-07-09 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jphia.v17i1.1735
Aisha Casoojee, Katijah Khoza-Shangase
{"title":"A descriptive cost comparison of Listening and Spoken Language - South Africa versus traditional Speech-Language Therapy as therapeutic approaches for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in South Africa.","authors":"Aisha Casoojee, Katijah Khoza-Shangase","doi":"10.4102/jphia.v17i1.1735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hearing impairment affects speech-language and academic development, creating substantial lifelong public health and economic burdens. In South Africa, early intervention typically follows either the Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa (LSL-SA) or Traditional Speech-Language Therapy (TSLT) model. Although LSL-SA demonstrates promising outcomes, limited evidence compares its costs with TSLT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such evidence is needed to inform equitable health financing and disability-inclusion policies.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the total and component costs of LSL-SA and TSLT; describe cost distribution across healthcare, education and family domains and identify barriers to accessibility and scalability.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study was conducted in South Africa and examined intervention pathways for children with hearing impairment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparative costing approach was used to estimate expenditures across healthcare, education, and family sectors and compare the economic implications of LSL-SA and TSLT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa incurred higher upfront therapy and rehabilitation costs but achieved superior outcomes, with 78% of children placed in mainstream schools compared with 42% in the TSLT group. The average total cost per child was ZAR 1.08 million for LSL-SA and ZAR 1.02 million for TSLT. Healthcare accounted for 65% of LSL-SA expenditure, whereas TSLT incurred higher education costs (35%) because of greater reliance on special schooling. Overall, LSL-SA demonstrated a more favourable cost-outcome profile despite its higher initial investment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite greater upfront investment, LSL-SA produced better educational outcomes and a more favourable cost-outcome profile than TSLT.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>This study provides LMIC-specific economic evidence to inform resource allocation, disability-inclusive policies, and investment in early hearing intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":44723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","volume":"17 1","pages":"1735"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13443968/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health in Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v17i1.1735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hearing impairment affects speech-language and academic development, creating substantial lifelong public health and economic burdens. In South Africa, early intervention typically follows either the Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa (LSL-SA) or Traditional Speech-Language Therapy (TSLT) model. Although LSL-SA demonstrates promising outcomes, limited evidence compares its costs with TSLT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such evidence is needed to inform equitable health financing and disability-inclusion policies.

Aim: This study aimed to compare the total and component costs of LSL-SA and TSLT; describe cost distribution across healthcare, education and family domains and identify barriers to accessibility and scalability.

Setting: This study was conducted in South Africa and examined intervention pathways for children with hearing impairment.

Methods: A comparative costing approach was used to estimate expenditures across healthcare, education, and family sectors and compare the economic implications of LSL-SA and TSLT.

Results: Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa incurred higher upfront therapy and rehabilitation costs but achieved superior outcomes, with 78% of children placed in mainstream schools compared with 42% in the TSLT group. The average total cost per child was ZAR 1.08 million for LSL-SA and ZAR 1.02 million for TSLT. Healthcare accounted for 65% of LSL-SA expenditure, whereas TSLT incurred higher education costs (35%) because of greater reliance on special schooling. Overall, LSL-SA demonstrated a more favourable cost-outcome profile despite its higher initial investment.

Conclusion: Despite greater upfront investment, LSL-SA produced better educational outcomes and a more favourable cost-outcome profile than TSLT.

Contribution: This study provides LMIC-specific economic evidence to inform resource allocation, disability-inclusive policies, and investment in early hearing intervention.

南非听力和口语与传统语言疗法作为南非聋哑和听力障碍儿童的治疗方法的描述性成本比较。
背景:听力障碍影响语言和学术发展,造成严重的终身公共卫生和经济负担。在南非,早期干预通常遵循听和说语言-南非(LSL-SA)或传统语言治疗(TSLT)模式。尽管LSL-SA显示出有希望的结果,但有限的证据将其成本与中低收入国家(LMICs)的TSLT进行比较。需要这些证据来为公平的卫生筹资和残疾包容政策提供信息。目的:本研究旨在比较LSL-SA和TSLT的总成本和成分成本;描述医疗保健、教育和家庭领域的成本分布,并确定可访问性和可扩展性方面的障碍。背景:本研究在南非进行,研究听力障碍儿童的干预途径。方法:采用比较成本法估计医疗保健、教育和家庭部门的支出,并比较LSL-SA和TSLT的经济含义。结果:听力和口语-南非的前期治疗和康复费用较高,但取得了较好的结果,78%的儿童进入主流学校,而TSLT组的这一比例为42%。LSL-SA的平均总成本为108万兰特,TSLT的平均总成本为102万兰特。医疗保健占LSL-SA支出的65%,而TSLT由于更依赖特殊学校而产生了更高的教育成本(35%)。总体而言,尽管初始投资较高,但LSL-SA表现出更有利的成本-结果。结论:尽管前期投入较大,但与TSLT相比,LSL-SA产生了更好的教育效果和更有利的成本-结果概况。贡献:本研究为中低收入国家的资源分配、残障包容政策和早期听力干预投资提供了经济依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health in Africa
Journal of Public Health in Africa PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health in Africa (JPHiA) is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that focuses on health issues in the African continent. The journal editors seek high quality original articles on public health related issues, reviews, comments and more. The aim of the journal is to move public health discourse from the background to the forefront. The success of Africa’s struggle against disease depends on public health approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书