Cost Analysis of Gestational Diabetes Screening Methods in Pregnant Women Referred to the Gynecology Hospitals Affiliated With Medical Sciences Universities in Tehran. Publisher



Alikhani N¹ ; Hantoushzadeh S² ; Rezapour A³ ; Hatam N⁴ Show Affiliations
Source: Shiraz E Medical Journal Published:2021

Abstract

Background: The American Diabetes Association defines gestational diabetes as no glucose tolerance in the second or third quarter of pregnancy. Gestational diabetes imposes a huge economic burden on the health system. Diagnosis of gestational diabetes is important because it not only predicts prenatal disorders but also affects the long-term outcomes of the mother and child. Since screening tests are costly, it is necessary to find a cheaper method with an acceptable feature. Objectives: The present study aimed to examine the costs of gestational diabetes screening in pregnant women referring to gynecology hospitals affiliated with medical sciences universities in Tehran. Methods: This was a descriptive-analytical study conducted in the selected hospitals affiliated with medical sciences universities in Tehran in 2016. The study population included all the pregnant women with no risk factors, referring to the selected centers. A multi-stage random sampling model was utilized, and the sample size was 392. The data were gathered through the forms designed for recording costs, as well as interviews, and were analyzed using SPSS18 software, t-test, and one-way ANOVA. Results: The mean direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs of the one-step method were $516,960, $71,593, and $142,162, respectively. Also, the mean direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs of the two-step method were $262,890, $46,536, and $28,621, respectively. Conclusions: The screening of pregnant women using the two-step method is cheaper to diagnose diabetes. The results of this study recommend gynecologists to use the two-step method to diagnose gestational diabetes with lower costs. © 2021, Author(s).