Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25995075›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2015

The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review.

Stuart J Wright, Cheryl Jones, Katherine Payne, Nimarta Dharni, Fiona Ulph

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. "EClinicalMedicine · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Psychological Impact of NBS for CF.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Cheryl JonesManchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. katherine.payne@manchester.ac.uk.
Nimarta DharniManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Fiona UlphManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 11/62/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe extent to which economic evaluations have included the healthcare resource and outcome-related implications of information provision in national newborn bloodspot screening programmes (NBSPs) is not currently known.

objectivesTo identify if, and how, information provision has been incorporated into published economic evaluations of NBSPs.

methodsA systematic review of economic evaluations of NBSPs (up to November 2014) was conducted. Three electronic databases were searched (Ovid: Medline, Embase, CINAHL) using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter with terms related to national NBSPs and screening-related technologies. These electronic searches were supplemented by searching the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED) and hand-searching identified study reference lists. The results were tabulated and summarised as part of a narrative synthesis.

resultsA total of 27 economic evaluations [screening-related technologies (n = 11) and NBSPs (n = 16)] were identified. The majority of economic evaluations did not quantify the impact of information provision in terms of healthcare costs or outcomes. Five studies did include an estimate of the time cost associated with information provision. Four studies included a value to reflect the disutility associated with parental anxiety caused by false-positive results, which was used as a proxy for the impact of imperfect information.

conclusionA limited evidence base currently quantifies the impact of information provision on the healthcare costs and impact on the users of NBSPs; the parents of newborns. We suggest that economic evaluations of expanded NBSPs need to take account of information provision otherwise the impact on healthcare costs and the outcomes for newborns and their parents may be underestimated.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFetal BloodHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID25995075
PMCPMC4751163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.