Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision

Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D

  • Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Utility scores were estimated for 609 hearing-impaired adults who completed EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and SF-6D survey instruments both before and after being provided with a hearing aid. Pre-intervention, the mean utility scores for EQ-5D (0.80) and SF-6D (0.78) were significantly higher than the mean HUI3 utility score (0.58). Post-intervention, the mean improvement in the HUI3 (0.06 change) was significantly higher than the mean improvement according to the EQ-5D (0.01 change) or SF-6D (0.01 change). The estimated cost effectiveness of hearing-aid provision is therefore likely to be dependent on which instrument is used to measure utility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gerard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, et al. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: 91–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G, et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40: 113–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heyse J, Cook J, Carides G. Statistical considerations in analysing health care resource utilization and cost data. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 215–35

    Google Scholar 

  4. Palmer C, Niparko J, Wyatt J, et al. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multi-channel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 125: 1221–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Krabbe P, Hinderink JB, van den Broek P. The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 864–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidature for unilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults. II: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 336–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Joore MA, Van Der Stel H H, Peters HJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129: 297–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 591–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41: 791–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, et al. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003; 12: 975–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004; 7: 602–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor RS, Paisley S, Davis AC. Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids. Br J Audiol 2001; 35: 271–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank clinicians and patients at the audiology clinics in Bath; Cambridge; Royal National Throat, Nose, and Ear Hospital (London); and Nottingham who provided data for this study. Costs of the study were met by a grant from the UK Department of Health (Modernising NHS Hearing Aid Services programme). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest that are relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garry R. Barton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C. et al. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 3, 103–105 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006

Keywords

Navigation