Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life by Experiences: The Experience Sampling Method

AbstractObjectiveTo explore the potential value of obtaining momentary, instead of retrospective, accounts of the description and valuation of a person’s own health-related quality of life (HRQOL).MethodsMomentary HRQOL was examined with the experience sampling method (ESM) in 139 participants from four different samples. The ESM consists of a so-called beep questionnaire that was administered 10 times a day by an electronic device. Feasibility was determined by assessing willingness to participate in the study and by analyzing the percentage of dropouts and the number of completed beep questionnaires. Multilevel analysis was used to investigate the relation between momentary HRQOL and momentary feelings and symptoms. The relation between momentary outcomes and the EuroQol visual analogue scale was investigated with a multiple regression model.ResultsThe overall participation rate was low, but there were no dropouts and the number of completed beeps was comparable to that in other studies. Multilevel analysis showed that feelings and symptoms were significant predictors of momentary HRQOL. The strength of these relations differed among three patient groups and a population-based sample. The EuroQol visual analogue scale was not predicted by momentary feelings and symptoms.ConclusionsWe can conclude that the use of the ESM to measure accounts of the momentary experience of health in different populations is feasible. Retrospective measures may provide a biased account of the impact of health problems in the daily lives of people who are affected. Moreover, the bias may be different in different conditions

Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary management of Tinnitus at a specialized Tinnitus centre.

RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are.BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is a common chronic health condition that affects 10% to 20% of the general population. Among severe sufferers it causes disability in various areas. As a result of the tinnitus, quality of life is often impaired. At present there is no cure or uniformly effective treatment, leading to fragmentized and costly tinnitus care. Evidence suggests that a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach in treating tinnitus is effective. The main objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive treatment provided by a specialized tinnitus center versus usual care. This paper describes the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: In a randomized controlled clinical trial 198 tinnitus patients will be randomly assigned to a specialized tinnitus care group or a usual care group. Adult tinnitus sufferers referred to the audiological centre are eligible. Included patients will be followed for 12 months. Primary outcome measure is generic quality of life (measured with the Health Utilities Index Mark III). Secondary outcomes are severity of tinnitus, general distress, tinnitus cognitions, tinnitus specific fear, and costs. Based on health state utility outcome data the number of patients to include is 198. Economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first randomized controlled trial that evaluates a comprehensive treatment of tinnitus and includes a full economic evaluation from a societal perspective. If this intervention proves to be effective and cost-effective, implementation of this intervention is considered and anticipated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at ClinicalTrial.gov. The trial registration number is NCT00733044

Mild hearing impairment can reduce verbal memory performance in a healthy adult population.

We studied to what extent immediate and delayed recall in an auditory verbal learning paradigm was affected by basic information processing speed (digit copying) and hearing acuity (average hearing acuity at 1, 2 and 4 KHz at the better ear). A group of 453 individuals in the age between 23 and 82 years with no overt hearing pathology was recruited from a larger study of cognitive aging (Maastricht Aging Study, MAAS). After controlling for age, sex, educational level, and processing speed it was found that a mild to moderate hearing loss predicted lower verbal memory performance. Auditory administered verbal memory tests can underestimate true memory performance, particularly in older individuals with unknown hearing status. Short-term and long-term memory function is generally assessed in clinical practice by using multi-trial word learning tests, such as the Buschke selective reminding paradigm, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the Califor-nia Verbal Learning Test (Lezak, 1995). In suc

Tinnitus:Pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment

Tinnitus is a common and heterogeneous condition, characterised by experiencing sound in the absence of an external source. Various treatment options are available in the Netherlands for patients with tinnitus, but these have limited support from methodologically sound studies. Diagnosis and treatment of tinnitus demands a standardized and multidisciplinary approach. Ideally, there should be a stepwise approach to diagnosis and treatment of tinnitus, with a gradual increase in intensity of treatment. This increase should depend upon the patient's requirements and degree of distress. Current scientific evidence suggests that intensive treatment of tinnitus based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is indicated for patients with severe tinnitus.</p

Cochlear Implant Outcomes: A Comparison between Irradiated and Non-irradiated Ears

ObjectivesRadiotherapy for head and neck tumors is known to potentially induce sensorineural hearing loss, which is possibly due to damage to the cochlear and/or auditory pathways. Since the success of cochlear implantation depends on a functional auditory nerve, this paper aims to study the hearing outcomes of cochlear implantation in irradiated ears.MethodsA retrospective study of cochlear implant recipients from our institution who had previously received radiotherapy for head and neck cancers was performed. A control group with cochlear implants who did not receive radiotherapy was recruited. A review of case records, speech discrimination scores (SDS), and a validated subjective questionnaire in the form of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was administered to the study group who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Global and category scores in both groups were averaged and statistically compared via non-inferiority (NI) testing.ResultsWith the control group (n=8) as the reference, the -ΔNI was defined, and a one-tailed lower 95% confidence interval was used for the irradiated group (n=8). The APHAB degree of improvement (%) results were as follows: global, 28.9% (19.32%, -ΔNI=16.3%); ease of communication, 67.0% (58.36%, -ΔNI=37.5%); background noise, 53.2% (44.14%, -ΔNI=26.8%); reverberation, 41.7% (28.85%, -ΔNI=32.7%); and aversiveness, -46.2% (-67.80%, -ΔNI=-56.9%). The SDS was 66.9% (56.02%, -ΔNI=51.0%). From the results, lower 95% confidence interval limits of global APHAB, SDS, ease of communication, and background noise scores of the irradiated group were within the defined -ΔNI boundary and hence are not inferior to the control. The categories of reverberation and aversiveness could not be proven, however.ConclusionThis study demonstrated marked improvements in hearing measured both objectively and subjectively. The overall hearing outcomes after cochlear implantation for post-irradiated patients were not worse than patients who have had no prior irradiation to ear structures

Potential barriers and facilitators for implementation of an integrated care pathway for hearing-impaired persons: an exploratory survey among patients and professionals

BACKGROUND: Because of the increasing costs and anticipated shortage of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists in the care for hearing-impaired persons, an integrated care pathway that includes direct hearing aid provision was developed. While this direct pathway is still under investigation, in a survey we examined expectations and potential barriers and facilitators towards this direct pathway, of patients and professionals involved in the pathway. METHODS: Two study populations were assessed: members of the health professions involved in the care pathway for hearing-impaired persons (general practitioners (GPs), hearing aid dispensers, ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists) and persons with hearing complaints. We developed a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire for the professionals, regarding expectations, barriers, facilitators and conditions for implementation. We developed two questionnaires for persons with hearing complaints, both regarding evaluations and preferences, and administered them after they had experienced two key elements of the direct pathway: the triage and the hearing aid fitting. RESULTS: On average GPs and hearing aid dispensers had positive expectations towards the direct pathway, while ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists had negative expectations. Professionals stated both barriers and facilitators towards the direct pathway. Most professionals either supported implementation of the direct pathway, provided that a number of conditions were satisfied, or did not support implementation, unless roughly the same conditions were satisfied. Professionals generally agreed on which conditions need to be satisfied. Persons with hearing complaints evaluated the present referral pathway and the new direct pathway equally. Many, especially older, participants stated however that they would still visit the GP and ENT-specialist, even when this would not be necessary for reimbursement of the hearing aid, and found it important that the ENT-specialist or Audiological Centre evaluated their hearing aid. CONCLUSION: This study identified professional concerns about the direct pathway for hearing-impaired persons. Gaps exist in expectations amongst professions. Also gaps exist between users of the pathway, especially between age groups and regions. Professionals are united in the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a successful implementation of the direct pathway. Implementation on a regional level is recommended to best satisfy these conditions