The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting, in the Netherlands

Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 129, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 297-304

  Joore, Manuela A ^a   Van der Stel, Hans ^b   Peters, Hans J M ^b   Boas, Gijs M ^c   Anteunis, Lucien J C ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Maastricht Hlth Eco Res/C A   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT CONTRAINDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TYPES OF STUDY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 0037336034     PISSN: 08864470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.129.3.297     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abutan BB, Hoes AW, Van Dalsen CL, Verschuure J, Prins A. Prevalence of hearing impairment and hearing complaints in older adults: a study in general practice. Fam Pract. 1993;10:391-395.
2. Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, et al. Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:188-194.
3. Mohr PE, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, et al. The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16: 1120-1135.
4. Tonning F, Heggebo T, Warland A, Johansen JF. Repair and re-use of hearing instruments. Br J Audiol. 1995;29:247-253.
5. Brickley GJ, Cleaver VC, Bailey S. An evaluation of a group follow-up scheme for new NHS hearing aid users. Br J Audiol. 1996;30:307-312.
6. Parving A, Sorensen MS, Carver K, Christensen B, Sibelle P, Vesterager V. Hearing instruments and health technology: an evaluation. Scand Audiol. 1997;26: 231-239.
7. Yueh B, Souza PE, McDowell JA, et al. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1197-1204.
8. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322-338.
9. Boas G, van der Stel H, Peters H, Joore M, Anteunis L. Dynamic modelling in medical technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17: 618-625.
10. EuroQol-Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
11. Dolan P. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results From a UK Population Survey. York, England: University of York; 1995.
12. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Zank H, et al. Development of a questionnaire to measure hearing related health state preferences framed in an overall health perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:528-539.
13. Central Bureau of Statistics. The Dutch Health Inquiry [in Dutch]. Voorburg, the Netherlands: Central Bureau of Statistics; 1994.
14. Duijvestijn JA, Anteunis LJ, Hendriks JJ, Manni JJ. Definition of hearing impairment and its effect on prevalence figures: a survey among senior citizens. Acta Otolaryngol. 1999;119:420-423.
15. Chorus A, Kremer A, Oortwijn W, Schaapveld K. Hearing Impairment in the Netherlands [in Dutch]. Leiden, the Netherlands: TNO-PG; 1995.
16. Streukens H, Leenen JAW. Provision and Reimbursement of Hearing Aids [in Dutch]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Nederlandse Vereniging van Audiciens Bedrijven; 1996.
17. Kapteyn TS, Hackenitz E, van Wijkel D. Measures to influence the use of hearing aids [in Dutch]. Huisarts Wetenschap. 1995;38:535-538.
18. Grootveld C, Orlebeke JF, Klandermans PG, Kapteijn TS. The Use of Hearing Aids Among Compulsory Insured Persons [in Dutch]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Ziekenfondsraad; 1989.
19. Oostenbrink J, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Manual for Cost Studies: Methods and Guideline Prices for Economic Evaluations in Health Care [in Dutch]. Amstelveen, the Netherlands: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2000.
20. Verfare CD. National Study on Hearing Impairment and Hearing Aid Fitting and Use [in Dutch]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Inter/View; 1985.
21. Ziekenfondsraad. Provision of Hearing Aids [in Dutch]. Amstelveen, the Netherlands: Ziekenfondsraad; 1994.
22. Mot E, Meulenbeek AJG. The Market for Hearing Aids: An Exploration [in Dutch]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Ministerie van VWS en de Raad van Bestuur van de Universiteit van Amsterdam; 1997.
23. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Chenault M, Anteunis L. Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol. In press.
24. Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. The impact of age on cost-effectiveness ratios and its control in decision making. Health Econ. 1996;5:227-239.
25. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7:723-740.
26. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473-481.
27. Bess FH. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear. 2000;21(4 suppl):74S-79S.
28. Yueh B, Souza P, McDowell J, et al. Does the choice of psychometric, clinimetric, utility of adherence outcomes influence conclusions in a hearing aid trial [abstract]? Med Decis Making. 1999;19:527.
29. Cox R, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, et al. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear. 2000;21(4 suppl):106S-115S.
30. Gilhome Herbst K. Psycho-social consequences of disorders of hearing in the elderly. In: Hinchcliffe R, ed. Hearing and Balance in the Elderly. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone Inc; 1983:174-200.