Literature DB >> 10206362

Paediatric cochlear implantation and health-technology assessment.

A Q Summerfield1, D H Marshall.   

Abstract

Cochlear implants are provided to children on the basis of the hypothesis that short-term outcomes in auditory receptive skills will translate via a cascade of medium-term outcomes into greater social independence and quality of life. The medium-term outcomes include: (i) enhanced engagement and integration in primary education, leading to greater scholastic achievement; (ii) enhanced social versatility and robustness, permitting a successful transition to secondary education; and (iii) enhanced educational qualifications, allowing greater opportunities in further education and employment. A sufficient number of children have used implants for long enough for it to be feasible to establish whether the first two medium-term outcomes are being achieved and, if so, at what cost in the provision of health care and education. The first part of this paper discusses alternative research designs that could address these issues. Although a prospective randomised controlled trial would provide the most powerful evidence for or against the hypothesis, it is implausible that adequate compliance with randomisation to treatments could be sustained to give such a study sufficient power. The most powerful realisable design would be a large-scale cross-sectional comparison of implanted children and matched groups of their non-implanted peers. The second part of the paper describes the results of a speculative cost-benefit analysis that seeks to identify the cost to society of providing implants to children. The analysis is based on measured costs of health care, but on estimates of costs and cost-savings in other domains. It indicates that paediatric implantation could be cost-neutral in the UK, provided that implantation saved pound sterling 3000/year in the cost of education, pound sterling 1000/year in other domains, and permitted an increase in personal income of 25% of the national median household income. These savings might be realised if implantation permitted sufficient facility in spoken language to allow every implanted child to enter mainstream education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10206362     DOI: 10.1016/s0165-5876(98)00133-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0165-5876            Impact factor:   1.675


  9 in total

1.  Enhancement technology and outcomes: what professionals and researchers can learn from those skeptical about cochlear implants.

Authors:  Patrick Kermit
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2012-12

2.  Measuring communicative performance with the FAPCI instrument: preliminary results from normal hearing and cochlear implanted children.

Authors:  James H Clark; Pooja Aggarwal; Nae-Yuh Wang; Raymond Robinson; John K Niparko; Frank R Lin
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-05       Impact factor: 1.675

3.  Rates of long-term cochlear implant use in children.

Authors:  Kevin James Contrera; Janet Seolin Choi; Caitlin Rebecca Blake; Joshua Francis Betz; John Kim Niparko; Frank R Lin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Assessing the use of speech and language measures in relation to parental perceptions of development after early cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Frank R Lin; Nae-Yuh Wang; Nancy E Fink; Alexander L Quittner; Laurie S Eisenberg; Emily A Tobey; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Timing of cochlear implantation and parents' global ratings of children's health and development.

Authors:  James H Clark; Nae-Yuh Wang; Anne W Riley; Christine M Carson; Rachel L Meserole; Frank R Lin; Laurie S Eisenberg; Emily A Tobey; Alexandra L Quittner; Howard W Francis; John K Niparko
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Language development after cochlear implantation: an epigenetic model.

Authors:  Timothy M Markman; Alexandra L Quittner; Laurie S Eisenberg; Emily A Tobey; Donna Thal; John K Niparko; Nae-Yuh Wang
Journal:  J Neurodev Disord       Date:  2011-11-19       Impact factor: 4.025

7.  A retrospective study of cochlear implant outcomes in children with residual hearing.

Authors:  Elizabeth Fitzpatrick; Rosemary McCrae; David Schramm
Journal:  BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord       Date:  2006-04-19

8.  Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Rural China.

Authors:  Jianxin Qiu; Chongxian Yu; Thathya V Ariyaratne; Chris Foteff; Zhangmin Ke; Yi Sun; Li Zhang; Feifei Qin; Georgina Sanderson
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Cochlear implant in postlingual children: functional results 10 years after the surgery.

Authors:  Liege Franzini Tanamati; Maria Cecilia Bevilacqua; Orozimbo Alves Costa
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.