Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn
- 319 Downloads
Despite the increase in the number of inherited metabolic diseases that can be detected at birth using a single dried blood spot sample, the impact of false positive results on parents remains a concern. We used an economic approach - the contingent valuation method – which asks parents to give their maximum willingness to pay for an extension in a screening programme and the degree to which the potential for false positive results diminishes their valuations. 160 parents of a child or children under the age of 16 years were surveyed and given descriptions of the current screening programme in the UK, an extended programme and an extended programme with no false positives. 148 (92.5%) respondents said they would accept the screen for the five extra conditions in an expanded screening programme whilst 10 (6.3%) said they would not and two were unsure. When asked to indicate if they would choose to be screened under an expanded screening programme with no false positive results, 152 (95%) said they would, five (3.1%) said they would not, two were unsure, and there was one non-response. 151 (94.4%) said they preferred the hypothetical test with no false-positives. The mean willingness to pay for the expanded programme was £178 compared to £219 for the hypothetical expanded programme without false positives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that there is widespread parental support for extended screening in the UK and that the number of false-positives is a relatively small issue.
KeywordsScreening Programme False Positive Result Congenital Hypothyroidism Neonatal Screening Extended Programme
The research was funded by the South Yorkshire Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC), which in turn is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).The authors confirm independence from the sponsors; the content of the article has not been influenced by the sponsors.
- Arrow K et al (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601–4614Google Scholar
- Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar