A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 157-163

  Barton, Garry R ^a,b   Bankart, John ^a   Davis, Adrian C ^a  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

EQ 5D, HUI3; Hearing impairment; SF 6D; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEATH; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX MARK III; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 5D; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 18844434436     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500057566     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Barton, G., Davis, A., Parving, A., Roine, R., Sorri, M., et al. 2003. Cross-sectional survey of Adult Hearing Aid services in Denmark, Finland & the UK. Audiological Medicine, 1, 107-14.
2. Barton, G., Bankart, J., Davis, A. & Summerfield, Q. 2004. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policies, 3, 103-105.
3. Bess, F.H. 2000. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear, 21, 74S-79S.
4. Bosch, J.L. & Hunink, M.G. 2000. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res, 9, 591-601.
5. Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R. & Booth, A. 1999. A review of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess, 3, 1-164.
6. Brazier, J.E., Harper, R., Jones, N.M., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., et al. 1992. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ, 305, 160-164.
7. Brazier, J., Jones, N. & Kind, P. 1993. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res, 2, 169-180.
8. Brazier, J., Roberts, J. & Deverill, M. 2002. The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health from the SF-36. J Health Econ, 21, 271-292.
9. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A. & Busschbach, J. 2004. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ, 13, 873-884.
10. Briggs, A., Clark, T., Wolstenholme, J. & Clarke, P. 2003. Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ, 12, 377-392.
11. Brooks, R. 1996. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53-72.
12. Cheng, A.K., Rubin, H.R., Powe, N.R., Mellon, N.K., Francis, H. W., et al. 2000. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA, 284, 850-856.
13. Cohen, D., Barton, G., Gray, J. & Brain, K. 2004. Health economics and genetic service development: A familial cancer genetic example. Fam Cancer, 3, 61 -67.
14. Conner-Spady, B. & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. 2003. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care, 41, 791-801.
15. Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16, 176-186.
16. Dalton, D.S., Cruickshanks, K.J., Klein, B.E., Klein, R., Wiley, T.L., et al. 2003. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist, 43, 661-668.
17. Davis, A.C. 1995. Hearing in adults. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
18. De Vries, S.O., Kuipers, W.D. & Hunink, M. 1998. Intermittent claudication: symptom severity versus health values. J Vasc Surg, 27, 422-430.
19. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P. & Williams, A. 1995. A social tariff for the EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. (Discussion Paper 138) University of York: Centre for Health Economics (Discussion Paper 138).
20. Drummond, M., O'Brien, B., Stoddart, G. & Torrance, G. 1997. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs. (2nd Edition) New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.
22. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M. & Torrance, G.W. 1995. Multi-Attribute Health Status Classification Systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7, 490-502.
23. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C.H., Zhu, Z., et al. 2002. Multi-Attribute and Single-Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care, 40, 113-128.
24. Grootendorst, P., Feeny, D. & Furlong, W. 2000. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: Evidence of construct validity for stroke and Arthritis patients in a population health survey. Med Care, 38, 290-299.
25. Guyatt, G.H., Berman, L.B., Townsend, M., Pugsley, S.O. & Chambers, L.W. 1987. A measure of quality of life in clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax, 42, 773-778.
26. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J. & Day, N.A. 2001. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med, 33, 358-370.
27. Heyse, J.F., Cook, J.R. & Carides, G.W. 2001. Statistical considerations in analysing health care resource utilization and cost data. In M. Drummond & A. McGuire (eds.) Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215-235.
28. Joore, M.A., Brunenberg, D.E., Chenault, M.N. & Anteunis, L.J. 2003a. Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol, 42, 152-160.
29. Joore, M.A., Potjewijd, J., Timmerman, A.A. & Anteunis, L.J. 2002. Response shift in the measurement of quality of life in hearing impaired adults after hearing aid fitting. Qual Life Res, 11, 299-307.
30. Joore, M.A., Van Der Stel, H., Peters, H.J., Boas, G.M. & Anteunis, L.J. 2003b. The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 129, 297-304.
31. Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C. & Williams, A. 1998. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316, 736-741.
32. Klassen, A., Fitzpatrick, R., Jenkinson, C. & Goodacre, T. 1999. Contrasting evidence for the effectiveness of cosmetic surgery from two health related quality of life measures. J Epid Commun Health, 53, 440-441.
33. Krabbe, P., Hinderink, J.B. & van den Broek, P. 2000. The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16, 864-873.
34. Longworth, L. & Bryan, S. 2003. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ, 12, 1061-1067.
35. Macran, S., Weatherly, H. & Kind, P. 2003. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care, 41, 218-231.
36. Muller, R. & Buttner, P. 1994. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med, 13, 2465-2476.
37. Mulrow, C.D., Aguilar, C., Endicott, J.E., Tuley, M.R., Velez, R., et al. 1990. Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med, 113, 188-194.
38. National Institute of Clinical Evidence (NICE). 2001. Hearing aid technology - full guidance. London: NICE (Technology Appraisals, Report No. 8). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk (accessed 3 June 2004).
39. O'Brien, B.J., Spath, M., Blackhouse, G., Severens, J.L., Dorian, P., et al. 2003. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ, 12, 975-981.
40. Oostenbrink, R., Moll, H.A. & Essink-Bot, M. 2002. The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis. A head-to-head comparison. J Clin Epidemiol, 55, 791-799.
41. Palmer, C.S., Niparko, J.K., Wyatt, J.R., Rothman, M. & DeLissovoy, G. 1999. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multi-channel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 125, 1221-1228.
42. Shrout, P.E. & Fleiss, J.L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull., 86, 1979, 420-428.
43. SPSS 2002. For Windows, release 11.0. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.
44. Summerfield, A.Q., Marshall, D.H., Barton, G.R. & Bloor, K.E. 2002. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 128, 1255-1262.
45. Taylor, R.S., Paisley, S. & Davis, A.C. 2001. Systematic Review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 35, 271-288.
46. Uimonen, S., Huttunen, K., Jounio-Ervasti, K. & Sorri, M. 1999. Do we know the real need for hearing rehabilitation at the population level? Hearing impairments in the 5- to -75-year-old cross-sectional Finnish population. Br J Audiol, 33, 53-59.
47. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. 2004. Criteria of candidature for unilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults II: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear, 25, 336-360.
48. Ware, J.E. & Sherbourne, C. 1992. The MOS 36 item short-form health survey: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 30, 473-483.
49. Wilson, C., Lewis, P. & Stephens, D. 2002. The short form 36 (SF36) in a specialist tinnitus clinic. Int J Audiol, 41, 216-220.