Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 103-105

  Barton, Garry R ^a   Bankart, John ^a   Davis, Adrian C ^a   Summerfield, Quentin A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEARING AID; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 18844376214     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11755652     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850-6
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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of qualityadjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41: 791-801
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224-7