ArticleJournal of public health in Africa2026
A descriptive cost comparison of Listening and Spoken Language - South Africa versus traditional Speech-Language Therapy as therapeutic approaches for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in South Africa.
Article in Journal of public health in Africa, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hearing impairment affects speech-language and academic development, creating substantial lifelong public health and economic burdens. In South Africa, early intervention typically follows either the Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa (LSL-SA) or Traditional Speech-Language Therapy (TSLT) model. Although LSL-SA demonstrates promising outcomes, limited evidence compares its costs with TSLT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such evidence is needed to inform equitable health financing and disability-inclusion policies. Aim: This study aimed to compare the total and component costs of LSL-SA and TSLT; describe cost distribution across healthcare, education and family domains and identify barriers to accessibility and scalability. Setting: This study was conducted in South Africa and examined intervention pathways for children with hearing impairment. Methods: A comparative costing approach was used to estimate expenditures across healthcare, education, and family sectors and compare the economic implications of LSL-SA and TSLT. Results: Listening and Spoken Language-South Africa incurred higher upfront therapy and rehabilitation costs but achieved superior outcomes, with 78% of children placed in mainstream schools compared with 42% in the TSLT group. The average total cost per child was ZAR 1.08 million for LSL-SA and ZAR 1.02 million for TSLT. Healthcare accounted for 65% of LSL-SA expenditure, whereas TSLT incurred higher education costs (35%) because of greater reliance on special schooling. Overall, LSL-SA demonstrated a more favourable cost-outcome profile despite its higher initial investment. Conclusion: Despite greater upfront investment, LSL-SA produced better educational outcomes and a more favourable cost-outcome profile than TSLT. Contribution: This study provides LMIC-specific economic evidence to inform resource allocation, disability-inclusive policies, and investment in early hearing intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.