Peter R Dixon1,2,3, David Feeny4,5,6, George Tomlinson2,3, Sharon Cushing1,7, Joseph M Chen1,8, Murray D Krahn2,3,9. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Health Utilities Incorporated, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 9. University Health Network, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: Utility is a single-value, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life that represents the desirability of a health state relative to being dead or in perfect health. Clinical, funding, and policy decisions rely on measured changes in utility. The benefit of hearing loss treatments may be underestimated because existing utility measures fail to capture important changes in quality of life associated with hearing loss. Objective: To develop a comprehensive profile of items that describe how quality of life is associated with hearing loss and its treatments that can be used to generate hearing-related quality of life measures, including a novel utility measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study, performed from August 1, 2018, to August 1, 2019, in tertiary referral centers, comprised a systematic literature review, focus groups, and semistructured interviews. The systematic review evaluated studies published from 1982 to August 1, 2018. Focus groups included 8 clinical experts experienced in the measurement, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss. Semistructured interviews included 26 adults with hearing loss recruited from an institutional data set and outpatient hearing aid and otology clinics using stratified convenience sampling to include individuals of diverse ages, urban and rural residency, causes of hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, and treatment experience. Main Outcomes and Measures: A set of items and subdomains that collectively describe the association of hearing loss with health-related quality of life. Results: The literature search yielded 2779 articles from the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Forty-five studies including 1036 individuals (age range, 18-84 years) were included. The focus group included 4 audiologists and 4 otologists. Hour-long semistructured interviews were conducted with 26 individuals (13 women; median age, 54 years; range, 25-83 years) with a broad range of hearing loss causes, configurations, and severities. From all 3 sources, a total of 125 items were generated and organized into 29 subdomains derived from the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Conclusions and Relevance: The association of hearing loss with quality of life is multidimensional and includes subdomains that are not considered in the estimation of health utility by existing utility measures. The presented comprehensive profile of items can be used to generate or evaluate measures of hearing-related quality of life, including utility measures.
Importance: Utility is a single-value, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life that represents the desirability of a health state relative to being dead or in perfect health. Clinical, funding, and policy decisions rely on measured changes in utility. The benefit of hearing loss treatments may be underestimated because existing utility measures fail to capture important changes in quality of life associated with hearing loss. Objective: To develop a comprehensive profile of items that describe how quality of life is associated with hearing loss and its treatments that can be used to generate hearing-related quality of life measures, including a novel utility measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study, performed from August 1, 2018, to August 1, 2019, in tertiary referral centers, comprised a systematic literature review, focus groups, and semistructured interviews. The systematic review evaluated studies published from 1982 to August 1, 2018. Focus groups included 8 clinical experts experienced in the measurement, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss. Semistructured interviews included 26 adults with hearing loss recruited from an institutional data set and outpatient hearing aid and otology clinics using stratified convenience sampling to include individuals of diverse ages, urban and rural residency, causes of hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, and treatment experience. Main Outcomes and Measures: A set of items and subdomains that collectively describe the association of hearing loss with health-related quality of life. Results: The literature search yielded 2779 articles from the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Forty-five studies including 1036 individuals (age range, 18-84 years) were included. The focus group included 4 audiologists and 4 otologists. Hour-long semistructured interviews were conducted with 26 individuals (13 women; median age, 54 years; range, 25-83 years) with a broad range of hearing loss causes, configurations, and severities. From all 3 sources, a total of 125 items were generated and organized into 29 subdomains derived from the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Conclusions and Relevance: The association of hearing loss with quality of life is multidimensional and includes subdomains that are not considered in the estimation of health utility by existing utility measures. The presented comprehensive profile of items can be used to generate or evaluate measures of hearing-related quality of life, including utility measures.
Authors: Kari Smilsky; Peter R Dixon; Leah Smith; David Shipp; Amy Ng; Tara Millman; Suzanne Stewart; Julian M Nedzelski; Vincent Y Lin; Joseph M Chen Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Véronique J C Kraaijenga; Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Inge Stegeman; Adriana L Smit; Robert J Stokroos; Nadia Hendrice; Rolien H Free; Bert Maat; Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; E A M Mylanus; Wendy J Huinck; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Wouter J Rijke; Anneke M Vermeulen; Christina Willeboer; Harry E T Knoors; Margreet C Langereis; Gert Jan van der Wilt Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Michael S Harris; Aaron C Moberly; Ben L Hamel; Kara Vasil; Christina L Runge; William J Riggs; Valeriy Shafiro Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 2.674
Authors: Natalie L Wu; Amanda I Phipps; Kevin R Krull; Karen L Syrjala; Paul A Carpenter; Laura S Connelly-Smith; Mary E Flowers; Elizabeth F Krakow; Masumi Ueda Oshima; Stephanie J Lee; Eric J Chow Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-26