Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bone-anchored hearing device

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1192-1197

  Monksfield, Peter ^a   Jowett, Sue ^b   Reid, Andrew ^a   Proops, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bone anchored hearing device; Cost utility analysis; Cost effectiveness analysis; Osseointegration; Quality adjusted life year

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONDUCTION DEAFNESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, CONDUCTIVE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80052969287     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31822e5ae6     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Snik AF, Mylanus EA, Proops DW, et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2005;195:2-12.
2. Holgers KM, Thomsen P, Tjellstrom A, Bjursten LM. Immunohis-tochemical study of the soft tissue around long-term skin-penetrating titanium implants. Biomaterials 1995;16:611-6.
3. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P, McGuire A. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): How Does it Work and What are the Implications for the U.S.? National Pharmaceutical Council. May 1, 2008. Available at: http://www.npcnow.org/App-Themes/Public/pdf/Issues/pub-ebm/ NICE%20Full%20Report% 20Final%206-23-08.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2011
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. 2nd ed. 2008.
5. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37:53-72. (Pubitemid 26191458)
6. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoe-conomics 1995;7:490-502.
7. Klop WM, Boermans PP, Ferrier MB, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH. Clinical relevance of quality of life outcome in cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:615-21.
8. Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt JR, Rothman M, de LG. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1221-8. (Pubitemid 29526318)
9. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Barton GR, Bloor KE. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1255-62. (Pubitemid 35403302)
10. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 2004;25:336-60.
11. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000;284:850-6. (Pubitemid 30643612)
12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. June 23, 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune 2008.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2010.
13. Office for National Statistics. National Statistics Web site. October 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme-population/ Interim-Life/ILTUK0507Reg.xls. Accessed December 3, 2008.
14. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327-40. (Pubitemid 27384638)
15. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10: 779-87. (Pubitemid 34041389)
16. Drummond MF. SMTGOBaSG. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.
17. Dun CA, Faber HT, de Wolf MJ, Cremers CW, Hol MK. An overview of different systems: the bone-anchored hearing aid. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:22-31.
18. Watson GJ, Silva S, Lawless T, Harling JL, Sheehan PZ. Bone anchored hearing aids: a preliminary assessment of the impact on outpatients and cost when rehabilitating hearing in chronic sup-purative otitis media. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:338-42.
19. Hol MK, Spath MA, Krabbe PF, et al. The bone-anchored hearing aid: quality-of-life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394-9. (Pubitemid 38456312)
20. Lazaro A. Theoretical arguments for the discounting of health consequences: where do we go from here? Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20: 943-61. (Pubitemid 35398694)