Anouk M Linssen1, Lucien J C Anteunis2, Manuela A Joore3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: anouk.linssen@mumc.nl. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening 50- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss in The Netherlands. We compared no screening, telephone screening, Internet screening, screening with a handheld screening device, and audiometric screening for various starting ages and a varying number of repeated screenings. METHODS: The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for no screening and for 76 screening strategies were analyzed using a Markov model with cohort simulation for the year 2011. Screening was deemed to be cost-effective if the costs were less than €20,000/QALY. RESULTS: Screening with a handheld screening device and audiometric screening were generally more costly but less effective than telephone and Internet screening. Internet screening strategies were slightly better than telephone screening strategies. Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, was the most cost-effective strategy, costing €3699/QALY. At a threshold of €20,000/QALY, this strategy was with 100% certainty cost-effective compared with current practice and with 69% certainty the most cost-effective strategy among all strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, is the optimal strategy to screen for hearing loss and might be considered for nationwide implementation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening 50- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss in The Netherlands. We compared no screening, telephone screening, Internet screening, screening with a handheld screening device, and audiometric screening for various starting ages and a varying number of repeated screenings. METHODS: The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for no screening and for 76 screening strategies were analyzed using a Markov model with cohort simulation for the year 2011. Screening was deemed to be cost-effective if the costs were less than €20,000/QALY. RESULTS: Screening with a handheld screening device and audiometric screening were generally more costly but less effective than telephone and Internet screening. Internet screening strategies were slightly better than telephone screening strategies. Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, was the most cost-effective strategy, costing €3699/QALY. At a threshold of €20,000/QALY, this strategy was with 100% certainty cost-effective compared with current practice and with 69% certainty the most cost-effective strategy among all strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, is the optimal strategy to screen for hearing loss and might be considered for nationwide implementation.
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
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
Authors: Evie C Landry; Mirre Scholte; Matthew P Su; Yvette Horstink; Rishi Mandavia; Maroeska M Rovers; Anne G M Schilder Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 4.677