A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Model of Hearing Aid Fitting

Oh, Soo Hee; Chun, Hyungi; Lee, Kyoung-Won; Lee, Junghak

doi:10.21848/asr.2017.13.2.95

Cited by 4 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The limited studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA compared to no HA resulted in a wide range of ICERs (USD9702 to USD721,942/ QALY) [28]. These studies employed various study design such as dynamic patient ow model, pre-post design, Markov state-transition model, WHO-CHOICE method and observational design to ascertain cost-effectiveness [28]. The high variability in the ICERS can be explained by utility measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It assumes all participants tted with HA were satis ed users and did not account for all other possible transitions that may occur for individuals with hearing loss such as satis ed HA-users and dissatis ed HA-users, progression of hearing loss or even frequency of HA use. Satis ed HA-users may use HA regularly and be compliant with routine check-ups while the dissatis ed HA-users may revisit audiologists to resolve issues regarding use of HA, which may result in different healthcare costs [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With earlier screening of hearing loss in the adult population, future studies can investigate productivity gains in greater detail and over a longer period. Future research in Singapore can explore the potential use of dynamic patient ow models to simulate the various transition states for hearing loss and ongoing decisions problems in HA use to accurately evaluate the cost effectiveness of HA use for older adults with HI [28,30,48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information regarding cost effectiveness of HA is scarce. A recent review of seven studies that performed economic evaluation of HA (digital or analogue) found that there was high variability in the costeffectiveness of the HA device ranging from USD 9,702 to USD 721,942/QALY [28]. Only three studies accounted for productivity loss due to hearing impairment [29][30][31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Kaur

Chong

Kannapiran

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).Methods Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.Results There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8,996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.Conclusions HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Kaur

Chong

Kannapiran

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Kaur

Chong

Kannapiran

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).MethodsParticipants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.ResultsThere were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8,996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.ConclusionsHA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hearing Aids for Middle-Aged and Older Adults in China: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ye¹,

Zhu

Chen

et al. 2023

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of hearing aid interventions to middle-aged and older adults in rural China. Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Community centers. Patients A total of 385 subjects 45 years and older with moderate or above hearing loss participated in the trial, of which 150 were in the treatment group and 235 in the control group. Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to the treatment group prescribing with hearing aids or to the control group with no intervention. Main Outcome and Measures The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing the treatment group with the control group. Results Assuming that the average life span of hearing aids is N years, the cost of the hearing aid intervention included the annual purchase cost of 10,000/N yuan, the annual maintenance cost of 41.48 yuan. However, the intervention led to annual healthcare costs of 243.34 yuan saved. The effectiveness of wearing a hearing aid included an increase of 0.017 quality-adjusted life years. It can be calculated that if N > 6.87, the intervention is very cost-effective; if 2.52 < N < 6.87, the increased cost-effectiveness of the intervention is acceptable; if N < 2.52, the intervention is not cost-effective. Conclusion In general, the average life span of hearing aids is between 3 and 7 years, so hearing aid interventions can be considered cost-effective with high probability. Our results can provide critical reference for policy makers to increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids.

show abstract

A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Model of Hearing Aid Fitting

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hearing Aids for Middle-Aged and Older Adults in China: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About