儿童视力和听力筛查方案成本效益比较数据的可得性。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jan Kik, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Allison R Mackey, Gwen Carr, Anna M Horwood, Maria Fronius, Jill Carlton, Helen J Griffiths, Inger M Uhlén, Huibert Jan Simonsz
{"title":"儿童视力和听力筛查方案成本效益比较数据的可得性。","authors":"Jan Kik,&nbsp;Eveline A M Heijnsdijk,&nbsp;Allison R Mackey,&nbsp;Gwen Carr,&nbsp;Anna M Horwood,&nbsp;Maria Fronius,&nbsp;Jill Carlton,&nbsp;Helen J Griffiths,&nbsp;Inger M Uhlén,&nbsp;Huibert Jan Simonsz","doi":"10.1177/09691413221126677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"62-68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/20/66/10.1177_09691413221126677.PMC10149880.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.\",\"authors\":\"Jan Kik,&nbsp;Eveline A M Heijnsdijk,&nbsp;Allison R Mackey,&nbsp;Gwen Carr,&nbsp;Anna M Horwood,&nbsp;Maria Fronius,&nbsp;Jill Carlton,&nbsp;Helen J Griffiths,&nbsp;Inger M Uhlén,&nbsp;Huibert Jan Simonsz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09691413221126677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"62-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/20/66/10.1177_09691413221126677.PMC10149880.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Screening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:对儿童视力和听力筛查方案进行成本-效果比较,应提供方法和数据。我们评估了欧洲数据收集的现状及其可用性。方法:eusgreen问卷于2017-2018年进行,评估了欧洲45个国家的儿童视力和听力筛查项目。就目前的研究而言,重新评价了其关于数据收集、监测和评价的项目,以及成本效益分析所必需的11个项目中的6个项目:患病率、敏感性、特异性、覆盖面、出席率和对后续行动的损失。结果:36% (N = 42)的国家报告了视力筛查中数据收集的做法,81% (N = 43)的国家报告了听力筛查中数据收集的做法;收集到的数据分别以12%和35%的比例发表。视力筛查的质量保证程序占19%,听力筛查的质量保证程序占26%,筛查效果研究占43%和47%,而成本效益分析占12%。弱视患病率为40%,听力损失患病率为77%,筛查试验敏感性为17%和14%,特异性为19%和21%,筛查覆盖率为40%和84%,出诊率为21%和37%,随访损失分别为12%和40%。结论:听力筛查的数据收集不足,视力筛查更是如此:大多数国家无法报告成本-效果比较所必需的数据。收集数据时,主要是在地方一级进行,目的是保证质量或问责制,而且往往无法获得数据。因此,无法比较筛查方案的成本效益使其多样性和低效率永久化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信