Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: A prospective national study

Clinical Otolaryngology

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 35-43

  Swan, I R C ^a,b   Guy, F H ^a   AkeroydM A , ^a  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; DIZZINESS; EXTERNAL EAR DISEASE; FEMALE; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; GLASGOW BENEFIT INVENTORY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX MARK 3; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE EAR DISEASE; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RHINOSINUSITIS; SNORING; SORE THROAT;

ADULT; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84858761522     PISSN: 17494478     EISSN: 17494486     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02433.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Feeny D., Furlong W., Torrance G.W. et al. (2002) Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med. Care 40, 113-128
2. Brooks R. (1996) EuroQol group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53-72
3. Ware J.E. Jr & Sherbourne C.D. (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473-483
4. Department of Health. (2009) Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
5. NICE. (2004) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London
6. Chisholm T., Johnson C., Danhauer J. et al. (2007) A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: Final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 18, 151-183
7. Grutters J.P.C., Joore M.A., van der Horst F. et al. (2007) Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual. Life Res. 16, 1439-1449
8. Barton G.R., Bankart J., Davis A.C. et al. (2004) Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 103-105
9. Bond M., Mealing S., Anderson R. et al. (2009) The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol. Assess. 13, 1-330
10. Palmer C.S., Niparko J.K., Wyatt J.R. et al. (1999) A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 125, 1221-1228
11. Barton G.R., Summerfield A.Q., Marshall D.H. et al. (2001) Choice of Instrument for Measuring the Gain in Utility from Cochlear Implantation. Health Economics Study Group, Oxford
12. Summerfield A.Q., Barton G.R., Toner J. et al. (2006) Self-reported benefits from successive bilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults: randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Audiol. 45, S99-S107
13. de Bree R., Verdonck-de Leeuw I.M., Keizer A.L. et al. (2008) Touch screen computer-assisted health-related quality of life and distress data collection in head and neck cancer patients. Clin. Otolaryngol. 33, 138-142
14. Kanatas A.N. & Rogers S.N. (2004) A national survey of health-related quality of life questionnaires in head and neck oncology. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 86, 6-10
15. Bess F.H. (2000) The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear. 21, 74S-79S
16. Abrams H.B., Chisolm T.H. & McArdle R. (2005) Health-related quality of life and hearing aids: a tutorial. Trends Amplif. 9, 99-109
17. Robinson K., Gatehouse S. & Browning G.G. (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 105, 415-422
18. Chin A. & Swan I.R.C. (2011). A review of the use of the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Manuscript in preparation
19. Data from Information Services Division (ISD). NHS National Services Scotland
20. Gatehouse S. (1992) The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 1258-1268
21. Munro K.J. (2008) Reorganization of the adult auditory system: perceptual and physiological evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 12, 254-271
22. Grootendorst P., Feeny D. & Furlong W. (2000) Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med. Care 38, 290-299
23. ®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 54
24. Browne J.P., Hopkins C., Slack R. et al. (2006) Health-related quality of life after polypectomy with and without additional surgery. Laryngoscope 2, 297-302
25. Jones C.A., Feeny D. & Eng K. (2005) Test-retest reliability of health utilities index scores: evidence from hip fracture. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21, 393-398