Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.

ABSTRACT: Background:Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).

Methods:Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (?40?dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score???18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.

Results:There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3?months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.

Conclusions:HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

SUBMITTER: Kaur P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7709244 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.

Kaur Palvinder P Chong Sheue Lih SL Kannapiran Palvannan P Teo W-S Kelvin WK Ling Charis Ng Wei CNW Weichen Chiang Win CW Ruling Gan G Yin Lee Sing LS Leng Tang Ying TY Pei Soo Ying SY Kang Then Tze TT Han Lim Zhen LZ Peizhen Lin L Yee Lynne Lim Hsueh LLH George Pradeep Paul PP

BMC health services research 20201201 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).<h4>Methods</h4>Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 ...[more]

PMID: 33261603

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Hearing loss (HL) is common among older adults and is associated with poorer health and impeded communication. Hearing aids (HAs), while helpful in addressing some of the outcomes of HL, are not covered by Medicare. Objective:To determine whether HA use is associated with health care costs and utilization in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study used nationally representative 2013-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data to evaluate the use of HAs among 1336 adults aged 65 years or older with HL. An inverse propensity score weighting was applied to adjust for potential selection bias between older adults with and without HAs, all of whom reported having HL. The mean treatment outcomes of HA use on health care utilization and costs were estimated. Exposures:Encounter with the US health care system. Main Outcomes and Measures:(1) Total health care, Medicare, and out-of-pocket spending; (2) any emergency department (ED), inpatient, and office visit; and (3) number of ED visits, nights in hospital, and office visits. Results:Of the 1336 individuals included in the study, 574 (43.0%) were women; mean (SD) age was 77 (7) years. Adults without HAs (n = 734) were less educated, had lower income, and were more likely to be from minority subpopulations. The mean treatment outcomes of using HAs per participant were (1) higher total annual health care spending by $1125 (95% CI, $1114 to $1137) and higher out-of-pocket spending by $325 (95% CI, $322 to $326) but lower Medicare spending by $71 (95% CI, -$81 to -$62); (2) lower probability of any ED visit by 2 percentage points (PPs) (24% vs 26%; 95% CI, -2% to -2%) and lower probability of any hospitalization by 2 PPs (20% vs 22%; 95% CI, -3% to -1%) but higher probability of any office visit by 4 PPs (96% vs 92%; 95% CI, 4% to 4%); and (3) 1.40 more office visits (95% CI, 1.39 to 1.41) but 0.46 (5%) fewer number of hospital nights (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.44), with no association with the number of ED visits, if any (95% CI, 0.01 to 0). Conclusions and Relevance:This study demonstrates the beneficial outcomes of use of HAs in reducing the probability of any ED visits and any hospitalizations and in reducing the number of nights in the hospital. Although use of HAs reduced total Medicare costs, it significantly increased total and out-of-pocket health care spending. This information may have implications for Medicare regarding covering HAs for patients with HL.

Project description:We investigated the associations between hearing aids (HA) and the maintenance of cognitive function among community-dwelling older adults with moderate hearing loss. A total of 407 participants aged 60 years or older with moderate hearing loss were recruited from the National Institute for Longevity Sciences, Longitudinal Study for Aging (NILS-LSA). Moderate hearing loss was defined as a pure-tone average of 40-69 dB at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz of the better ear, according to the definition proposed by the Japan Audiological Society. Cognitive function was evaluated using the four subtests of the Japanese version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised Short Forms (WAIS-R-SF): Information, Similarities, Picture completion, and Digit Symbol Substitution (DSST). A longitudinal analysis of 1192 observations with a mean follow-up period of 4.5 ± 3.9 years was performed. The HA use rate at any time during the follow-up period was 31.4%, and HA users were significantly younger (t-test, p = 0.001), had worse hearing (p < .0001) and higher education (p = 0.001), participated more frequently in the survey (p < .0001), and were less depressed (χ2 test, p = 0.003) than the older adults not using HA. General linear mixed models consisted of the fixed effects of HA use, follow-up time, and an HA use × time interaction term adjusted for age and pure-tone average thresholds at baseline, sex, education, and other possible confounders. HA use showed significant main effects on the scores for Picture completion and DSST after adjustment; scores were better in the HA use group than in the no HA use group. The HA use × time interaction was significant for the Information score (p = 0.040). The model-predicted 12-year slope with centralizing age indicated that the no HA use group showed greater decline over time on Information scores than did HA use group. The slopes did not differ between HA users and non-users for the Similarities, Picture completion and DSST. In conclusion, HA use may have a protective effect on the decline in general knowledge in older adults with moderate hearing loss.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the laboratory efficacy and real-world effectiveness of advanced directional microphones (DM) and digital noise reduction (NR) algorithms (i.e., premium DM/NR features) relative to basic-level DM/NR features of contemporary hearing aids (HAs). The study also examined the effect of premium HAs relative to basic HAs and the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features.DesignFifty-four older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed a single-blinded crossover trial. Two HA models, one a less-expensive, basic-level device (basic HA) and the other a more-expensive, advanced-level device (premium HA), were used. The DM/NR features of the basic HAs (i.e., basic features) were adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with fewer channels. In contrast, the DM/NR features of the premium HAs (i.e., premium features) included adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with more channels, bilateral beamformers, speech-seeking DMs, pinna-simulation directivity, reverberation reduction, impulse NR, wind NR, and spatial NR. The trial consisted of four conditions, which were factorial combinations of HA model (premium versus basic) and DM/NR feature status (on versus off). To blind participants regarding the HA technology, no technology details were disclosed and minimal training on how to use the features was provided. In each condition, participants wore bilateral HAs for 5 weeks. Outcomes regarding speech understanding, listening effort, sound quality, localization, and HA satisfaction were measured using laboratory tests, retrospective self-reports (i.e., standardized questionnaires), and in-situ self-reports (i.e., self-reports completed in the real world in real time). A smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment system was used to collect in-situ self-reports.ResultsLaboratory efficacy data generally supported the benefit of premium DM/NR features relative to basic DM/NR, premium HAs relative to basic HAs, and DM/NR features relative to no DM/NR in improving speech understanding and localization performance. Laboratory data also indicated that DM/NR features could improve listening effort and sound quality compared with no features for both basic- and premium-level HAs. For real-world effectiveness, in-situ self-reports first indicated that noisy or very noisy situations did not occur very often in participants' daily lives (10.9% of the time). Although both retrospective and in-situ self-reports indicated that participants were more satisfied with HAs equipped with DM/NR features than without, there was no strong evidence to support the benefit of premium DM/NR features and premium HAs over basic DM/NR features and basic HAs, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough premium DM/NR features and premium HAs outperformed their basic-level counterparts in well-controlled laboratory test conditions, the benefits were not observed in the real world. In contrast, the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features was robust both in the laboratory and in the real world. Therefore, the present study suggests that although both premium and basic DM/NR technologies evaluated in the study have the potential to improve HA outcomes, older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are unlikely to perceive the additional benefits provided by the premium DM/NR features in their daily lives. Limitations concerning the study's generalizability (e.g., participant's lifestyle) are discussed.

Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.

Publications

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets