Literature DB >> 16957506

Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, IV: cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation.

Garry R Barton1, Paula C Stacey, Heather M Fortnum, A Quentin Summerfield.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation by conducting a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective.
DESIGN: In a cross-sectional survey, the parents of a representative sample of hearing-impaired children assessed the health utility of their child using a revised version of the Health Utilities Index Mark III questionnaire. Linear regression was used to estimate the gain in health utility associated with implantation while controlling for eight potentially confounding variables: average (4-frequency, unaided, preoperative) hearing level (AHL), age at onset of hearing-impairment, age, gender, number of additional disabilities, parental occupational skill level, ethnicity, and parental hearing status. The gain in health utility was accumulated to estimate the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) that would be gained from implantation over 15 yr and over a child's lifetime. The incremental societal cost of implantation, calculated in euros at 2001/2 levels, was estimated by summing the incremental costs of implantation that are incurred in the health sector, in the education sector, and by the child's family. The cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation was estimated by calculating the incremental societal cost per QALY gained and was compared with an upper limit of acceptability of 50,000 euros per QALY.
RESULTS: The parents of 403 implanted children, and 1863 nonimplanted children, completed the health utility questionnaire. Higher health utility was associated with a more favorable AHL, an older age at onset of hearing impairment, female gender, having fewer additional disabilities, having parents with a greater occupational skill level, white ethnicity, and implantation. The gain in health utility associated with implantation was estimated to be higher for children with a worse preoperative AHL and who were implanted when younger. Over 15 yr, for a child implanted at age 6 with a preoperative loss of 115 dB, 2.23 QALYs were estimated to be gained, compared with a mean incremental societal cost of 57,359 euros, yielding a mean cost per QALY of 25,629 euros. Cost-effectiveness was more favorable: (1) when estimated over a child's lifetime rather than 15 yr, (2) for children with a worse preoperative AHL, and (3) for children who were implanted when younger.
CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost of gaining a QALY for the children in the present sample falls within acceptable limits. The strategy of giving highest priority for implantation to children with the greatest loss of hearing, and who are younger, maximizes benefit for a given cost.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16957506     DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000233967.11072.24

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  20 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in hearing restoration.

Authors:  Kunal Kulkarni; Douglas Eh Hartley
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-09

3.  Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3.

Authors:  Laura Smith-Olinde; Scott D Grosse; Frank Olinde; Patti F Martin; John M Tilford
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05-17       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Quality of Life in Children with Hearing Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lauren Roland; Caroline Fischer; Kayla Tran; Tara Rachakonda; Dorina Kallogjeri; Judith E C Lieu
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 3.497

5.  Cochlear implant-evoked cortical activation in children with cochlear nerve deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; John Grose; Anna X Hang; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Aaron Parkinson; Jennifer Arcaroli
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  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

8.  Age-dependent cost-utility of pediatric cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Yevgeniy R Semenov; Susan T Yeh; Meena Seshamani; Nae-Yuh Wang; Emily A Tobey; Laurie S Eisenberg; Alexandra L Quittner; Kevin D Frick; John K Niparko
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The cost of cochlear implantation: a review of methodological considerations.

Authors:  Costa Nadège; Garnault Valérie; Ferlicoq Laura; Derumeaux-Burel Hélène; Bongard Vanina; Deguine Olivier; Fraysse Bernard; Molinier Laurent
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-17

Review 10.  Bilateral Cochlear Implantation: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2018-10-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.