Volume 4, Issue 2 (April 2025)
Health Science Monitor 2025, 4(2): 112-121 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ahmadpoor S, Farrokh-Eslamlou H, Yusefzadeh H, Alinia C. Cost-Effectiveness analysis of ultrasound scans during pregnancy in Iran. Health Science Monitor 2025; 4 (2) :112-121
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-223-en.html
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-223-en.html
Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
Abstract: (154 Views)
Background & Aims: There is limited evidence in Iran regarding the costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios of ultrasound screening scenarios. The aim of this study was to address these knowledge gaps
Materials & Methods: We used the cost-effectiveness analysis of one-time pregnancy ultrasound screening (OTPUS) and two-time pregnancy ultrasound screening (TTPUS) strategies from the societal perspective. We applied a Monte Carlo Simulation model including 1000 pregnant mothers and calculated each scenario's cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios based on 2020 data. We took the direct medical (obstetrician’s visits, ultrasound tariffs, and confirmatory tests) and non-medical costs (travel costs) into account to calculate the costs based on the bottom-up approach. Moreover, we estimated the number of detected fetal anomalies as an effectiveness factor by considering the sensitivity and specificity of the screening methods. The average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios determine the cost-effectiveness of each screening scenario. The data on costs were extracted from the official Iranian public sector tariffs in 2020. Moreover, the epidemiological and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted from the published evidence. We applied the one-way sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of data uncertainty on the study's findings.
Results: The screening costs per pregnant mother in the OTPUS and TTPUS models were $12.08 and $17.35, and the effectiveness of these approaches was 8 and 17 detected fetal anomalies per 1000 pregnant mothers, respectively. The average cost-effectiveness ratios were $1509.50 for OTPUS and $1020.35 for TTPUS. Finally, the cost of diagnosing an additional anomaly in the two-time ultrasound approach was $585.56.
Conclusion: The OTPUS model imposes 43.6% lower costs on pregnant mothers, but also detects a significantly lower number of fetal anomalies. TTPUS policy needs $585.56 more to find an extra case.
Materials & Methods: We used the cost-effectiveness analysis of one-time pregnancy ultrasound screening (OTPUS) and two-time pregnancy ultrasound screening (TTPUS) strategies from the societal perspective. We applied a Monte Carlo Simulation model including 1000 pregnant mothers and calculated each scenario's cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios based on 2020 data. We took the direct medical (obstetrician’s visits, ultrasound tariffs, and confirmatory tests) and non-medical costs (travel costs) into account to calculate the costs based on the bottom-up approach. Moreover, we estimated the number of detected fetal anomalies as an effectiveness factor by considering the sensitivity and specificity of the screening methods. The average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios determine the cost-effectiveness of each screening scenario. The data on costs were extracted from the official Iranian public sector tariffs in 2020. Moreover, the epidemiological and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted from the published evidence. We applied the one-way sensitivity analysis to determine the effects of data uncertainty on the study's findings.
Results: The screening costs per pregnant mother in the OTPUS and TTPUS models were $12.08 and $17.35, and the effectiveness of these approaches was 8 and 17 detected fetal anomalies per 1000 pregnant mothers, respectively. The average cost-effectiveness ratios were $1509.50 for OTPUS and $1020.35 for TTPUS. Finally, the cost of diagnosing an additional anomaly in the two-time ultrasound approach was $585.56.
Conclusion: The OTPUS model imposes 43.6% lower costs on pregnant mothers, but also detects a significantly lower number of fetal anomalies. TTPUS policy needs $585.56 more to find an extra case.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Economics
Received: 2025/02/2 | Accepted: 2025/03/12 | Published: 2025/04/30
Received: 2025/02/2 | Accepted: 2025/03/12 | Published: 2025/04/30
References
1. Behrman RE, Kliegman RM, Jenson H. Nelson textbook of pediatrics. 16th editions. Wash ington: WB Saunders Company. 2000. [Google Scholar]
2. Irani M, Khadivzadeh T, Asghari Nekah SM, Ebrahimipour H, Tara F. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2018;21(Supple):29-41. [Google Scholar]
3. Sharami S, Faraji R, Khoramnia S, Dalile Heyrati S. Survey the reason of maternal request for prenatal ultrasound in low risk pregnancy. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. 2011;20(78):49-55. [Google Scholar]
4. Šamánek M. Congenital heart malformations: prevalence, severity, survival, and quality of life. Cardiology in the young. 2000;10(3):179-85. [DOI] [PMID]
5. Faal G, Abbasi R, Bijari B. The prevalence of major congenital anomalies among live births in Birjand, Iran. Modern Care Journal. 2018;15(2). [DOI]
6. Carvalho M, Brizot M, Lopes L, Chiba C, Miyadahira S, Zugaib M. Detection of fetal structural abnormalities at the 11-14 week ultrasound scan. Prenatal Diagnosis: Published in Affiliation With the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. 2002;22(1):1-4. [DOI] [PMID]
7. Abbaszadeh F, Baghery A, Mehran N. Quality of life among pregnant women. Hayat. 2009;15(1). [Google Scholar]
8. Hematyar M, Khajouie P. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in 1000 live births in Javaheri Hospital, Tehran, 2004. Medical Science Journal of Islamic Azad Univesity-Tehran Medical Branch. 2005;15(2):75-8. [Google Scholar]
9. Kavoosi ES, Younessi S, Farhud DD. Screening of fetal chromosome aneuploidies in the first and second trimester of 125,170 Iranian pregnant women. Iranian journal of public health. 2015;44(6):791. [Google Scholar]
10. Aryan Z, Bahadori A, Farhud D. Prenatal diagnostic tests of genetic disorders. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2019;77(1):8-12. [Google Scholar]
11. Novelline RA, Squire LF. Squire's fundamentals of radiology. La Editorial, UPR. 2004. [Google Scholar]
12. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. 2000. [DOI] [PMID]
13. Roberts T, Mugford M, Piercy J. Choosing options for ultrasound screening in pregnancy and comparing cost effectiveness: a decision analysis approach. BJOG. An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1998;105(9):960-70. [DOI] [PMID]
14. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis D, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. New England journal of medicine. 1993;329(12):821-7. [DOI] [PMID]
15. Brezinka C. Training, certification and CME in obstetric ultrasound scan in Europe. European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006;1(4):223-6. [DOI]
16. Kagan KO, Wright D, Valencia C, Maiz N, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency, fetal heart rate, free β-hCG and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Human reproduction. 2008;23(9):1968-75. [DOI] [PMID]
17. Daliri S, Sayehmiri K, Asadollahi K, Rezaei N, Saroukhani D. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Neonatology IJN. 2018;9(2):21-32. [DOI] [PMID]
18. Karim JN, Roberts NW, Salomon LJ, Papageorghiou AT. Systematic review of first‐trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017;50(4):429-41. [DOI] [PMID]
19. Leivo T, Tuominen R, Saari‐Kemppainen A, Ylöstalo P, Karjalainen O, Heinonen O. Cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1996;7(5):309-14. [DOI] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
