An economic appraisal of the benefits of screening for open spina bifida
Appraisal of the costs and benefits of public sector programmes is an essential part of planning the optimal allocation of society's resources. This paper reports a study of the potential benefits to be derived if the UK National Health Service (NHS) were to introduce a mass-screening programme for the prenatal detection of fetuses affected by open spina bifida. These benefits are compared with the costs of a screening programme as estimated in the Report  by the Working Group on Screening for Neural Tube Defects of the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS). A satisfactory screening test for open spina bifida has been developed in recent years, but routine prenatal screening has not yet become generally available. The paper therefore considers first the inferences that may be drawn about the efficiency and desirability of implementing a national screening programme from comparison of its costs and benefits. A brief description of screening and its likely impact is followed by a discussion of previous attempts at measuring the benefits of a screening programme and it is argued that these evaluations have adopted an approach which is rather unsatisfactory from the standpoint of economic methodology. A more appropriate conceptual approach to measuring the benefits of a screening programme is outlined and, after discussing the resolution of the theoretical and practical problems encountered in applying it, estimates of the benefits are calculated. The findings are compared first with those of previous studies which are shown to have under-estimated the benefits and secondly with the costs of a screening programme which almost certainly are lower than the benefits. It is therefore concluded that a screening programme would constitute an efficient use of NHS resources. Details of the data and their sources are appended.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 16 (1982)
Issue (Month): 5 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:5:p:545-560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.