Title |
Implementation of a cost-effective strategy to prevent neonatal early-onset group B haemolytic streptococcus disease in the Netherlands
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2393-13-155 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Diny GE Kolkman, Marlies EB Rijnders, Maurice GAJ Wouters, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, CPB Kitty van der Ploeg, Christianne JM de Groot, Margot AH Fleuren |
Abstract |
Early-onset Group B haemolytic streptococcus infection (EOGBS) is an important cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality in the first week of life. Primary prevention of EOGBS is possible with intra-partum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP.) Different prevention strategies are used internationally based on identifying pregnant women at risk, either by screening for GBS colonisation and/or by identifying risk factors for EOGBS in pregnancy or labour. A theoretical cost-effectiveness study has shown that a strategy with IAP based on five risk factors (risk-based strategy) or based on a positive screening test in combination with one or more risk factors (combination strategy) was the most cost-effective approach in the Netherlands. IAP for all pregnant women with a positive culture in pregnancy (screening strategy) and treatment in line with the current Dutch guideline (IAP after establishing a positive culture in case of pre-labour rupture of membranes or preterm birth and immediate IAP in case of intra-partum fever, previous sibling with EOGBS or GBS bacteriuria), were not cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was based on the assumption of 100% adherence to each strategy. However, adherence in daily practice will be lower and therefore have an effect on cost-effectiveness. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Peru | 1 | 1% |
Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 84 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
Lecturer | 6 | 7% |
Other | 19 | 22% |
Unknown | 18 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 43% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Other | 9 | 10% |
Unknown | 20 | 23% |