Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3.

Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Health Related Professions, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA.
Quality of Life Research (Impact Factor: 2.86). 06/2008; 17(6):943-53. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9358-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare two preference-weighted, caregiver-reported measures of health-related quality of life for children with permanent childhood hearing loss to determine whether cost-effectiveness analysis applied to deaf and hard of hearing populations will provide similar answers based on the choice of instrument.
Caregivers of 103 children in Arkansas, USA, with documented hearing loss completed the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) to describe the health status of their children. Audiology and other clinical measures were abstracted from medical records. Mean scores were compared overall and by degree of hearing loss. Linear regression was used to correlate preference scores with a four-frequency pure-tone average, cochlear implant status, and other factors.
Mean preference scores for the QWB and HUI3 were similar (0.601 and 0.619, respectively) although the HUI3 demonstrated a wider range of values (-0.132 to 1.000) compared to the QWB (0.345-0.854) and was more sensitive to mild hearing loss. Both measures correlated with the pure-tone average, were negatively associated with comorbid conditions and positively associated with cochlear implant status. In the best fitting regression models, similar estimates for cochlear implant status and comorbid conditions were obtained from the two measures.
Despite considerable differences in the HUI3 and the QWB scale, we found agreement between the two instruments at the mean, but clinically important differences across a number of measures. The two instruments are likely to yield different estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, especially for interventions involving mild to moderate hearing loss.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the effect of sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children on their quality of life (QoL). Prospective cohort-control study. Tertiary academic referral center. Thirty children with prelingual deafness underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (mean age at first implant, 1.8 years; mean age at second implant, 5.3 years). Nine children with a unilateral cochlear implant were also included in the study. All children had prelingual deafness, had good implant performance, and had no benefit from a contralateral conventional hearing aid. The groups were matched on duration of unilateral implant use, chronological age, and degree of bilateral hearing loss. Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. Quality of life was assessed before surgery of the second implant and after 12 and 24 months of bilateral implant use. In the children with a unilateral cochlear implant, QoL was assessed over time and was compared with the study group after 12 and 24 months. Six questionnaires were used to measure QoL: overall health status using a visual analog scale; the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3); the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL); the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory (GCBI); the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ); and the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ). Results showed no significant gain in generic QoL measures associated with sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (P > .05). The nonsignificant effect yielded on the HUI3 could be attributed to the ceiling effect and the lack of resolution in the hearing domain obtained in cochlear implant recipients. The gain in QoL of +0.04 may, therefore, be underestimated. In contrast, the 3 disease-specific questionnaires showed a significant improvement in QoL (P < .05). Results also showed that, unlike the children with a unilateral implant, QoL measures continued to improve with longer durations of bilateral implant use. Within the study group, the age at second implantation had no influence on the gain in QoL (P > .05). Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children is associated with an improvement in QoL, although this is predominantly reflected in the disease-related aspects of QoL and not necessarily in generic QoL.
    Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery 02/2012; 138(2):134-41. DOI:10.1001/archoto.2011.229 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite considerable progress in measuring family spillover effects for economic evaluations, much work remains. This editorial describes recent advances in the field and identifies areas for future research. In particular, we point out the need to clarify the potential for double-counting from including spillover effects related to caregiver time and spillover effects related to family quality of life outcomes in Reference Case analyses. We believe that research on family spillover effects has the potential to increase interest in the field of economic evaluation and its use as a tool for decision making.
    Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 12/2014; 15(2):1-4. DOI:10.1586/14737167.2015.997216 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study consists in a systematic review concerning the economic evaluation of cochlear implant (CI) in children by searching the main international clinical and economic electronic databases. All primary studies published in English from January 2000 to May 2010 were included. The types of studies selected concerned partial economic evaluation, including direct and indirect costs of cochlear implantation; complete economic evaluation, including minimization of costs, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) performed through observational and experimental studies. A total of 68 articles were obtained from the database research. Of these, 54 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were eliminated. After reading the abstracts of the 14 articles selected, 11 were considered eligible. The articles were then read in full text. Furthermore, 5 articles identified by bibliography research were added manually. After reading 16 of the selected articles, 9 were included in the review. With regard to the studies included, countries examined, objectives, study design, methodology, prospect of analysis adopted, temporal horizon, the cost categories analyzed strongly differ from one study to another. Cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and an analysis of educational costs associated with cochlear implants were performed. Regarding the cost analysis, only two articles reported both direct cost and indirect costs. The direct cost ranged between € 39,507 and € 68,235 (2011 values). The studies related to cost-effectiveness analysis were not easily comparable: one study reported a cost per QALY ranging between $ 5197 and $ 9209; another referred a cost of $ 2154 for QALY if benefits were not discounted, and $ 16,546 if discounted. Educational costs are significant, and increase with the level of hearing loss and type of school attended. This systematic review shows that the healthcare costs are high, but savings in terms of indirect and quality of life costs are also significant. Cochlear implantation in a paediatric age is cost-effective. The exiguity and heterogeneity of studies did not allow detailed comparative analysis of the studies included in the review.
    Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica: organo ufficiale della Società italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale 10/2011; 31(5):311-8. · 1.44 Impact Factor