Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:51:13.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Cost Effectiveness of Preventing Preterm Delivery in Twin Pregnancies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

E. Papiernik*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baudelocque University Clinic, University René Descartes, Paris, France
L.G. Keith
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, and Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA
*
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baudelocque Clinic, René Descartes University, 123 Bd. de Port Royal, F-75014 Paris, France

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As an extension of previous work on the risk of prematurity in singletons and on the social cost of twin births, an analysis has been carried out into the cost effectiveness of preventing premature delivery in twin pregnancies. The cost of prevention is assessed in terms of early diagnosis through ultrasound screening and of an extra 11 weeks of work leave to expectant mothers. When this cost is compared to the social cost involved in the transfer of newborns to neonatal intensity care units and in supporting handicapped children, it is concluded that the total cost of prevention corresponds to one-third of the long-term costs associated to lack of prevention.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Bleker, OP, Breuer, W, Huidekoper, BL (1979): A study of birth weight, placental weight and mortality of twins as compared to singletons. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 86:111118.Google Scholar
2.Doring, GK, Hossfeld, CG, Auer, A (1978): Ueber die Risiken der Zwillings-Schwangerschaft und Geburts. Geburtsch Frauenheilkd 38:516524.Google Scholar
3.Erhenhaft, PM, Wagner, JL, Herdman, RC (1989): Changing prognosis for very low birth weight infants. Obstet Gynecol 74:528535.Google Scholar
4.Ewald, U (1988): What is the cost of neonatal intensive care. Report of the State of the Art Conference on Neonatal Intensive Care. The Swedish Medical Research Committee, 06 12-15, 1988. Personal communication.Google Scholar
5.Héluin, G, Bessis, R, Papiernik, E (1979): Clinical management of twin pregnancies. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:333336.Google Scholar
6.Lowry, MF, Stafford, J (1988): Northern region twin survey 1984. J Obstet Gynecol 8:228234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Osborne, GH, Patel, NB (1985): An assessment of perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies in Dundee. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 34:193199.Google Scholar
8.Papiernik, E (1969): Le coefficient de risque d'accouchement prématuré (CRAP). Presse Med 77:793794.Google Scholar
9.Papiernik, E (1983): Social costs of twin births. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 32: 105111.Google Scholar
10.Papiernik, E, Keith, LG, Bouyer, J, Dreyfus, J, Lazar, P (1989): Effective prevention of preterm birth: The French experiences measured at Haugueneau. Birth Defects Orig Art Ser 25.Google Scholar
11.Persson, PH, Grennert, L (1969): Toward normalization of twin pregnancy. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:341346.Google Scholar
12.Scholtes, G (1977): Ueberwachung und Betreibung der Mehrlingschwangerschaften. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 37:747755.Google Scholar
13.Simpson, H, Walker, G (1981): Estimating the costs required for neonatal intensive care. Arch Dis Child 56:9093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Stewart, AL, Reynolds, EOR, Lipscomb, AP (1981): Outcome for infants of very low birth weight. Survey of the world literature. Lancet 1:10381041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Tresmontant, R, Héluin, G, Papiernik, E (1983): Cost of care and prevention of preterm births in twin pregnancies. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 32:99103.Google Scholar
16.United States Office of Technical Assessment (1988): Healthy Children: Investing in the Future. OTA H 345. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar