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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
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
Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850–6
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–7
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006