Literature DB >> 21480098

Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for hearing loss.

Chuan-Fen Liu1, Margaret P Collins, Pamela E Souza, Bevan Yueh.   

Abstract

Routine hearing screening can identify patients who are motivated to seek out and adhere to treatment, but little information exists on the cost-effectiveness of hearing screening in a general population of older veterans. We compared the cost-effectiveness of three screening strategies (tone-emitting otoscope, hearing handicap questionnaire, and both together) against no screening (control group) in 2,251 older veterans. The effectiveness measure for each group was the proportion of hearing aid use 1 year after screening. The audiology cost measure included costs of hearing loss screening and audiology care for 1 year after screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness was the audiology cost of additional hearing aid use for each screening group compared with the control group. The mean total audiology cost per patient was $77.04, $122.70, $121.37, and $157.08 for the control, otoscope, questionnaire, and dual screening groups, respectively. The tone-emitting otoscope appears to be the most cost-effective approach for hearing loss screening, with a significant increase in hearing aid use 1 year after screening (2.8%) and an insignificant incremental cost-effectiveness of $1,439.00 per additional hearing aid user compared with the control group. For this population of older veterans, screening for hearing loss with the tone-emitting otoscope is cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21480098     DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.03.0041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev        ISSN: 0748-7711


  7 in total

1.  A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.

Authors:  Judy R Dubno; Pranab Majumder; Janet Prvu Bettger; Rowena J Dolor; Victoria Eifert; Howard W Francis; Carl F Pieper; Kristine A Schulz; Mina Silberberg; Sherri L Smith; Amy R Walker; David L Witsell; Debara L Tucci
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2022-06-25

2.  Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.

Authors:  Ethan D Borre; Mohamed M Diab; Austin Ayer; Gloria Zhang; Susan D Emmett; Debara L Tucci; Blake S Wilson; Kamaria Kaalund; Osondu Ogbuoji; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-05-08

Review 3.  Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation.

Authors:  Fiona Barker; Emma Mackenzie; Lynette Elliott; Simon Jones; Simon de Lusignan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-18

4.  Economic Burden of Hearing Loss for the U.S. Military: A Proposed Framework for Estimation.

Authors:  Hasanat Alamgir; David L Tucker; Sun-Young Kim; Jose A Betancourt; Caryn A Turner; Natasha S Gorrell; Nicole J Wong; Hari K R Sagiraju; Sharon P Cooper; David I Douphrate; Kristina W Whitworth; Dritana Marko; David Gimeno; John Cornell; Tanisha L Hammill; Andrew J Senchak; Mark D Packer
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.437

5.  Pilot Initiatives of Adult Hearing Screening in Italy.

Authors:  A Paglialonga; G Tognola; F Grandori
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2011-03-25

6.  Development of a test of suprathreshold acuity in noise in Brazilian Portuguese: a new method for hearing screening and surveillance.

Authors:  Nara Vaez; Liliane Desgualdo-Pereira; Alessia Paglialonga
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  SUN-test (Speech Understanding in Noise): A Method for Hearing Disability Screening.

Authors:  A Paglialonga; G Tognola; F Grandori
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2011-03-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.