Screening for congenital dislocation of the hip: an economic appraisal


Related Publications

Smolina K, Weymann D, Morgan S, Ross C, Carleton B. Association between regulatory advisories and codeine prescribing to postpartum women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2015;313(18):1861-2.
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.

Publication Topics

Screening for congenital dislocation of the hip: an economic appraisal

Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication1984
AuthorsFulton MJ, Barer ML
JournalCanadian Medical Association journalCan.Med.Assoc.J.
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