A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A cost-minimisation analysis comparing alternative telemedicine screening approaches for retinopathy of prematurity. | LitMetric

Introduction: Screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is an important procedure in the prevention of blindness in high-risk preterm infants. In the regionalised healthcare system of Queensland (Australia), outside of the major centres, some preterm infants are cared for in special care nurseries (SCNs). When necessary, infants in these nurseries who are at risk of ROP are transferred to a tertiary hospital for screening by paediatric ophthalmologists. The transport of preterm infants for eye examinations adds risk and incurs significant costs to the health system. Using a cost-minimisation approach, we aimed to compare the costs of the current ROP screening practice with two alternative telemedicine approaches.

Methods: We constructed a decision analytic model to estimate costs from a health service perspective with a five-year analysis horizon; activity data from a tertiary ROP screening service were used to inform the models. The three models assessed were: (a) a digital retinal photography (DRP)-equipped travelling nurse, (b) equipping SCNs with DRP, and providing training to local nurses, and (c) current practice of infant transfer. In all cases, the tertiary centre provides specialist ophthalmologic review.

Results: Of the three models, we estimated the most expensive option to be equipping SCNs with DRP and providing training to local nurses (AUD$4114/infant). We found that the current practice of transferring infants was the second most expensive (AUD$1021/infant). The most economical model was the specialist nurse travelling to each SCN with a portable DRP (AUD$363/infant). A sensitivity analysis, which assessed uncertainty and variability around the cost estimates, found that the ranking for the expected costs of the alternative models of care did not change.

Discussion: This is the first economic and cost-minimisation analysis in Australia to compare the costs of the current screening programme with two alternative telemedicine approaches for screening ROP. Telemedicine programmes that facilitate non-physician screening may improve the cost efficiency of the health system while maintaining the health outcomes for children, and reducing the risk associated with infant transport.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20976028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

alternative telemedicine
12
preterm infants
12
cost-minimisation analysis
8
screening
8
retinopathy prematurity
8
costs health
8
health system
8
compare costs
8
costs current
8
rop screening
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!