Cost-effectiveness of one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial

被引:35
作者
Leivo, T [1 ]
Tuominen, R [1 ]
SaariKemppainen, A [1 ]
Ylostalo, P [1 ]
Karjalainen, O [1 ]
Heinonen, OP [1 ]
机构
[1] HELSINKI UNIV,CENT HOSP,DEPT PUBL HLTH,HELSINKI,FINLAND
关键词
ultrasound screening; cost-effectiveness;
D O I
10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07050309.x
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a controlled clinical trial, the costs of standardized one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy in relation to the reduction in perinatal mortality. A trial population of 9310 pregnant women was randomly allocated to ultrasound screening or a control group. Two obstetric hospitals and 64 recruiting antenatal health centers were involved. The costs included actually realized costs, i.e. positive costs, and gains, i.e. negative costs, resulting from lower health-care use. Cost-accounting data were obtained by a questionnaire to all attenders and measurements at the screening, and later complemented by a questionnaire to a random sample of 534 screened women. Internal accounting and other hospital data, national statistics and health-market sources were also used. The actually realized cost of each avoided perinatal death was FIM 84 378 ($21 938), while the net overall estimate combining all positive and negative costs showed a cost saving of FIM 65 680 ($17 077). The total positive unit cost of ultrasound screening was FIM 393 ($102). Longer ultrasound examination time and more numerous advanced examinations were rewarded by clearly fewer perinatal deaths and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. One-stage second-trimester ultrasound screening is cost-effective when all significant costs and effects are taken into account.
引用
收藏
页码:309 / 314
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]   REDUCED USE OF DIAGNOSTIC OBSTETRIC ULTRASOUND IN NORWAY Result of Consensus Panel Recommending Routine Screening in Pregnancy? [J].
Backe, Bjorn ;
Nafstad, Per ;
Saetnan, Ann Rudinow .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1990, 69 (7-8) :649-650
[2]  
BAKKETEIG LS, 1984, LANCET, V2, P207
[3]   WHAT DO PATIENTS VALUE - WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ULTRASOUND IN NORMAL-PREGNANCY [J].
BERWICK, DM ;
WEINSTEIN, MC .
MEDICAL CARE, 1985, 23 (07) :881-893
[4]  
BUCKER HC, 1993, BRIT MED J, P13
[5]  
EWIGMAN B, 1990, OBSTET GYNECOL, V76, P189
[6]   EFFECT OF PRENATAL ULTRASOUND SCREENING ON PERINATAL OUTCOME [J].
EWIGMAN, BG ;
CRANE, JP ;
FRIGOLETTO, FD ;
LEFEVRE, ML ;
BAIN, RP ;
MCNELLIS, D .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1993, 329 (12) :821-827
[7]   AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC-STUDY OF OBSTETRIC ULTRASOUND EXAMINATIONS IN DENMARK 1989-1990 [J].
JORGENSEN, FS .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1992, 71 (07) :513-519
[8]  
KOCK C, 1989, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V101, P341
[9]   LONG-TERM EXPERIENCE OF GENERAL ULTRASOUND SCREENING IN PREGNANCY [J].
PERSSON, PH ;
KULLANDER, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1983, 146 (08) :942-947
[10]   FETAL ANOMALIES IN A CONTROLLED ONE-STAGE ULTRASOUND SCREENING TRIAL - A REPORT FROM THE HELSINKI ULTRASOUND TRIAL [J].
SAARIKEMPPAINEN, A ;
KARJALAINEN, O ;
YLOSTALO, P ;
HEINONEN, OP .
JOURNAL OF PERINATAL MEDICINE, 1994, 22 (04) :279-289