Screening for congenital dislocation of the hip: an economic appraisal

Research

Related Publications

Suter E, Misfeldt R, Mallinson S, Wilhelm A, Boakye O, Marchildon G, et al. Comparative Review of the Policy Landscape of Team-based Primary Health Care Service Delivery in Western Canada. Alberta Health Services; 2014.
Laberge M, Pang J, Walker K, Wong ST, Hogg W, Wodchis WP. QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada: A focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2014.
McGregor MJ, Abu-Laban RB, Ronald L, McGrail KM, Andrusiek D, Baumbusch J, et al. Nursing Home Characteristics Associated with Resident Transfers to Emergency Department. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2012;33(1):38-48.
Koehoorn M, McLeod CB, Fan JK, McGrail KM, Barer ML, Cote P, et al. Do private clinics or expedited fees improve wait- or return-to-work times for injured workers following knee surgery? Healthcare Policy. 2011;5(3):17-26.
Sutherland JM, Barer ML, Evans RG, Crump RT. Will paying the piper change the tune? Healthcare Policy. 2011;6(4):16-24.

Publication Topics

Screening for congenital dislocation of the hip: an economic appraisal

Title
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication1984
AuthorsFulton MJ, Barer ML
JournalCanadian Medical Association journalCan.Med.Assoc.J.
Volume130
Issue9
Pages1149 - 1156
Date Published1984
KeywordsBraces, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Hip Dislocation, Congenital/diagnosis/economics/therapy, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Population Surveillance/economics
AbstractThe direct costs of screening for congenital dislocation of the hip (CDH) are compared with the treatment costs resulting from no screening in a cost-effectiveness analysis in British Columbia. Under certain conditions the costs associated with screening and subsequent conservative treatment for 6 to 15 positive cases of CDH/1000 liveborn infants were considerably lower than the costs of either open or closed reduction of the hip for 1.5 infants with CDH per 1000 infants not screened. When adjustments were made to the assumptions about screening costs, rates with which cases were missed and hospital treatment costs, only the assumptions thought to be overly unfavourable to screening and overly optimistic for no screening brought the costs of no screening within the likely range of costs of screening. Some specific and general implications of the cost-effectiveness of screening for CDH in British Columbia are discussed.
Citation Key356