Dataset Information

Hearing dogs for people with severe and profound hearing loss: a wait-list design randomised controlled trial investigating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hearing loss increases the risk of poor outcomes across a range of life domains. Where hearing loss is severe or profound, audiological interventions and rehabilitation have limited impact. Hearing dogs offer an alternative, or additional, intervention. They live permanently with recipients, providing sound support and companionship.

Methods

A single-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the impacts of a hearing dog on mental well-being, anxiety, depression, problems associated with hearing loss (responding to sounds, fearfulness/social isolation), and perceived dependency on others. Participants were applicants to the UK charity 'Hearing Dogs for Deaf People'. Eligibility criteria were as follows: first-time applicant; applying for a hearing dog (as opposed to other support provided by the charity). Participants were randomised 1:1 to the following: receive a hearing dog sooner than usual [HD], or within the usual application timeframe (wait-list [WL] comparator). The primary outcome was mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) 6 months (T1) after HD received a hearing dog. The cost-effectiveness analysis took a health and social care perspective.

Results

In total, 165 participants were randomised (HD n = 83, WL n = 82). A total of 112 (67.9%) were included in the primary analysis (HD n = 55, WL n = 57). At T1, mental well-being was significantly higher in the HD arm (adjusted mean difference 2.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.79, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in anxiety, depression, functioning, fearfulness/social isolation, and perceived dependency, favouring the HD arm, were also observed. On average, HD participants had used fewer statutory health and social care resources. In a scenario whereby costs of provision were borne by the public sector, hearing dogs do not appear to be value for money. If the public sector made a partial contribution, it is possible that hearing dogs would be cost-effective from a public sector perspective.

Conclusions

Hearing dogs appear to benefit recipients across a number of life domains, at least in the short term. Within the current funding model (costs entirely borne by the charity), hearing dogs are cost-effective from the public sector perspective. Whilst it would not be cost-effective to fully fund the provision of hearing dogs by the public sector, a partial contribution could be explored.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry on 28.1.2019: ISRCTN36452009 .

SUBMITTER: Stuttard L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8515662 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical care alone at the end of life is unlikely to meet all needs. Volunteers are a key resource, acceptable to patients, but there is no evidence on care outcomes. This study aimed to determine whether support from a social action volunteer service is better than usual care at improving quality of life for adults in the last year of life.A pragmatic, multi-centre wait-list controlled trial, with participants randomly allocated to receive the volunteer support intervention either immediately or after a 4 week wait. Trained volunteers provided tailored face-to-face support including befriending, practical support and signposting to services, primarily provided within the home, typically for 2-3 hours per week. The primary outcome was rate of change of quality of life at 4 weeks (WHO QOL BREF, a general, culturally sensitive measure). Secondary outcomes included rate of change of quality of life at 8 weeks and Loneliness (De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social support (mMOS-SS), and reported use of health and social care services at 4 and 8 weeks.In total, 196 adults (61% (n?=?109) female; mean age 72 years) were included in the study. No significant difference was found in main or secondary outcomes at 4 weeks. Rate of change of quality of life showed trends in favour of the intervention (physical quality of life domain: b?=?3.98, CI, -0.38 to 8.34; psychological domain: b?=?2.59, CI, -2.24 to 7.43; environmental domain: b?=?3, CI, -4.13 to 4.91). Adjusted analyses to control for hours of volunteer input found significantly less decrease in physical quality of life in the intervention group (slope (b) 4.43, CI, 0.10 to 8.76). While the intervention also favoured the rate of change of emotional (b?=?-0.08; CI, -0.52 to 0.35) and social loneliness (b?=?-0.20; CI, -0.58 to 0.18), social support (b?=?0.13; CI, -0.13 to 0.39), and reported use of health and social care professionals (b?=?0.16; CI, -0.22 to 0.55), these were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported.Clinicians can confidently refer to volunteer services at the end of life. Future research should focus on 'dose' to maximise likely impact.The trial was prospectively registered. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN12929812 , registered 20 May 2015.

Project description:BackgroundEducation and advice is provided for tinnitus management in all UK audiology clinics. Sound therapy, including provision of hearing aids may be offered, but this is often dependent on a clinician's decision rather than UK policy. This inconsistent management reflects a lack of evidence around the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus. This open-label, two-arm multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial gathered data around recruitment, acceptability and outcome assessments to determine the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus management.MethodsAdults referred to audiology for tinnitus, with an aidable hearing loss were recruited at five UK audiology clinics. They were randomised 1:1 to either education and advice (treatment as usual (TAU), n = 41) or TAU plus hearing aids (n = 42). Outcomes were collected by questionnaires 12 weeks after randomisation. After participation, interviews were conducted with a subset of both participants and clinicians from each trial centre.ResultsEighty three participants from five sites were randomised. Non-aidable hearing loss was the main reason for ineligibility to participate in the trial reported by the sites. Seventy three percent of participants returned the 12-week questionnaires, with return rates by site ranging from 61 to 100%. Fifteen out of 33 participants (45%) reported using hearing aids for the clinician-recommended time, or longer, during the day. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was the outcome measure most responsive to change. The majority of participants also agreed it was relevant to their tinnitus and hearing loss. Qualitative data demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to participants. Feedback from clinicians revealed a potential lack of equipoise. It also highlighted the differences in referral and treatment pathways between departments and differences in audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids. Health economic measures were well completed for those returned. No change in health-related quality of life was observed. Costs were higher in the intervention arm, but self-reports of healthcare service use indicated participant confusion in treatment pathways.ConclusionsThis feasibility trial is the first step towards obtaining high quality evidence to determine potential clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus versus usual care. A definitive trial was deemed to be feasible, with some modifications based on feasibility findings and using the TFI as the primary outcome. This trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0816-20,014) and registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14218416).

Project description:BackgroundAlthough literature provides support for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as an efficacious intervention for social phobia, more research is needed to improve treatments for children.MethodsForty four Caucasian children (ages 8-14) meeting diagnostic criteria of social phobia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; APA, 1994) were randomly allocated to either a newly developed CBT program focusing on cognition according to the model of Clark and Wells (n = 21) or a wait-list control group (n = 23). The primary outcome measure was clinical improvement. Secondary outcomes included improvements in anxiety coping, dysfunctional cognitions, interaction frequency and comorbid symptoms. Outcome measures included child report and clinican completed measures as well as a diagnostic interview.ResultsSignificant differences between treatment participants (4 dropouts) and controls (2 dropouts) were observed at post test on the German version of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Furthermore, in the treatment group, significantly more children were free of diagnosis than in wait-list group at post-test. Additional child completed and clinician completed measures support the results.DiscussionThe study is a first step towards investigating whether CBT focusing on cognition is efficacious in treating children with social phobia. Future research will need to compare this treatment to an active treatment group. There remain the questions of whether the effect of the treatment is specific to the disorder and whether the underlying theoretical model is adequate.ConclusionPreliminary support is provided for the efficacy of the cognitive behavioral treatment focusing on cognition in socially phobic children. Active comparators should be established with other evidence-based CBT programs for anxiety disorders, which differ significantly in their dosage and type of cognitive interventions from those of the manual under evaluation (e.g. Coping Cat).

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with hearing loss, particularly those who lose their hearing in adulthood, are at an increased risk of social isolation, mental health difficulties, unemployment, loss of independence, risk of accidents, and impaired quality of life. In the United Kingdom, a single third-sector organization provides hearing dogs, a specific type of assistance dog trained to provide sound support to people with hearing loss. These dogs may also deliver numerous psychosocial benefits to recipients. This has not previously been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE:The study aims to evaluate the impact of a hearing dog partnership on the lives of individuals with severe or profound hearing loss. METHODS:A 2-arm, randomized controlled trial will be conducted within the United Kingdom with 162 hearing dog applicants, aged 18 years and older. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a matched-pairs design to receive a hearing dog sooner than usual (intervention arm: arm B) or to receive a hearing dog within the usual timeframe (comparator arm: arm A). In the effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome is a comparison of mental well-being 6 months after participants in arm B have received a hearing dog (arm A have not yet received a hearing dog), measured using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures include the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Work and Social Adjustments Scale. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness, including health-related quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions and social care-related quality-adjusted life years. Participants will be followed up for up to 2 years. A nested qualitative study will investigate the impacts of having a hearing dog and how these impacts occur. RESULTS:The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research's School for Social Care Research. Recruitment commenced in March 2017 and is now complete. A total of 165 participants were randomized. Data collection will continue until January 2020. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. A summary of the findings will be made available to participants. Ethical approval was received from the University of York's Department of Social Policy and Social Work Research Ethics Committee (reference SPSW/S/17/1). CONCLUSIONS:The findings from this study will provide, for the first time, strong and reliable evidence on the impact of having a hearing dog on people's lives in terms of their quality of life, well-being, and mental health. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN36452009; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36452009. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/15452.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic depression (CD) typically have an early symptom onset, more psychiatric comorbidities, more treatment attempts, and more frequent and longer inpatient hospitalizations than patients with major depressive disorders. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program for patients with chronic depression (CD). The primary research question was whether two intensive psychodynamic inpatient treatments, affect phobia therapy (APT) and VITA, were superior to an outpatient wait list condition, receiving treatment as usual (TAU), at completion of treatment. To investigate if a potential difference between the intensive treatment and the wait list control group was dependent on a specific psychotherapeutic model, the study contrasted two therapies with similar intensity, but different theoretical rationales.MethodsTwo hundred eighty patients with CD were included in a naturalistic study. Patients were assessed at four time points; assessment, start of therapy, end of therapy and 1-year follow-up. Three comparisons were performed with patients matched across groups; Intensive inpatient treatment program (APT + VITA) vs wait list during treatment, APT vs VITA during treatment and APT vs VITA during follow-up. The outcome measure was the BDI-II.ResultsIntensive inpatient treatment program vs. wait list showed a significant difference in favor of the intensive treatment. No significant differences were found between APT and VITA during therapy or follow-up; but both groups had large effect sizes during treatment, which were maintained during follow-up.ConclusionsThe intensive inpatient psychotherapy program showed superior effect on chronic depression over an outpatient wait list condition receiving treatment as usual (TAU), but no significant differences were found between the two intensive inpatient psychodynamic treatments. The results provide support for the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program in treatment of chronic and severe disorders, such as CD, which could be of benefit for policymakers and the health care sector as they are allocating recourses efficiently.Trial registrationThis study has been retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05221567) on February 3rd, 2022.