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: 2.49).
06/2008; 17(6):943-53. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9358-x
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.
Available from: Giuseppe Turchetti
- "Smith-Olinde et al. 9, as the authors did not perform an analysis of costs, but only describe the quality of life of children with permanent hearing impairment. "
[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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: People with tetraplegia face substantial physical and financial hardships. Although upper extremity reconstruction has been advocated for people with tetraplegia, these procedures are markedly underused in the United States. Population-based preference evaluation of upper extremity reconstruction is important to quantify the value of these reconstructive procedures. This study sought to establish the preferences for 3 health states: tetraplegia, tetraplegia with corrected pinch function, and tetraplegia with corrected elbow extension function.
A computer-based, time trade-off survey was administered to a cohort of 81 able-bodied second-year medical students who served as a surrogate for the general public. This survey instrument has undergone pilot testing and has established face validity to evaluate the 3 health states of interest. Utilities were calculated based on an estimated 20 years of remaining life.
The mean utility for the tetraplegic health state was low. On average, respondents gave up 10.8 +/- 5.0 out of a hypothetical 20 years for perfect health, for a utility of tetraplegia equal to 0.46. For recovery of pinch function, respondents gave up an average of 6.5 +/- 4.3 years, with a corresponding health utility of 0.68. For recovery of elbow extension function, respondents gave up an average of 7.6 +/- 4.5 years, with a corresponding health utility of 0.74.
This study established the preferences for 2 upper extremity surgical interventions: tetraplegia with pinch and tetraplegia with elbow extension. The findings from this study place a high value on upper-limb reconstructive procedures with tetraplegia.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The use of utility weights for the calculation of quality-adjusted life years is particularly problematic for pediatric health states. This article reviews variability in utility weights for intellectual disability and permanent hearing loss in economic evaluations of newborn screening and childhood immunizations. Utility weights for severe intellectual disability ranged from 0.06 to 0.74. Most studies either did not vary these utility weights in sensitivity analyses or assumed low variability; consequently, the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates was not fully assessed. Two recently published catalogs of utility weights for pediatric health states also show wide divergences in estimates. More work is needed to establish measures of health utilities for childhood health states in order to allow for comparable assessments of pediatric interventions.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.