An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.Purpose: This review examines psychometric performance of three widely used generic preference-based measures, that is, EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and Short-form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) in patients with hearing impairments. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies of patients with hearing impairments where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted and analysed to assess the reliability, validity (known group differences and convergent validity) and responsiveness of the measures across hearing impairments. Results: Fourteen studies (18 papers) were included in the review. HUI3 was the most commonly used utility measures in hearing impairment. In all six studies, the HUI3 detected difference between groups defined by the severity of impairment, and four out of five studies detected statistically significant changes as a result of intervention. The only study available suggested that EQ-5D only had weak ability to discriminate difference between severity groups, and in four out of five studies, EQ-5D failed to detected changes. Only one study involved the SF-6D; thus, the information is too limited to conclude on its performance. Also evidence for the reliability of these measures was not found. Conclusion: Overall, the validity and responsiveness of the HUI3 in hearing impairment was good. The responsiveness of EQ-5D was relatively poor and weak validity was suggested by limited evidence. The evidence on SF-6D was too limited to make any judgment. More head-to-head comparisons of these and other preference measures of health are required.Medical Research Counci

Variation of health-related quality of life assessed by caregivers and patients affected by severe childhood infections.

BACKGROUND: The agreement between self-reported and proxy measures of health status in ill children is not well established. This study aimed to quantify the variation in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) derived from young patients and their carers using different instruments. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between August 2010 and March 2011. Children with meningitis, bacteremia, pneumonia, acute otitis media, hearing loss, chronic lung disease, epilepsy, mild mental retardation, severe mental retardation, and mental retardation combined with epilepsy, aged between five to 14 years in seven tertiary hospitals were selected for participation in this study. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), and Mark 3 (HUI3), and the EuroQoL Descriptive System (EQ-5D) and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) were applied to both paediatric patients (self-assessment) and caregivers (proxy-assessment). RESULTS: The EQ-5D scores were lowest for acute conditions such as meningitis, bacteremia, and pneumonia, whereas the HUI3 scores were lowest for most chronic conditions such as hearing loss and severe mental retardation. Comparing patient and proxy scores (n = 74), the EQ-5D exhibited high correlation (r = 0.77) while in the HUI2 and HUI3 patient and caregiver scores were moderately correlated (r = 0.58 and 0.67 respectively). The mean difference between self and proxy-assessment using the HUI2, HUI3, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS scores were 0.03, 0.05, -0.03 and -0.02, respectively. In hearing-impaired and chronic lung patients the self-rated HRQOL differed significantly from their caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The use of caregivers as proxies for measuring HRQOL in young patients affected by pneumococcal infection and its sequelae should be employed with caution. Given the high correlation between instruments, each of the HRQOL instruments appears acceptable apart from the EQ-VAS which exhibited low correlation with the others

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

OBJECTIVES: To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting METHODS: Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. RESULTS: All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from 647,209 euros/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to 15,811 euros/QALY for HUI3. CONCLUSION: Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyse

A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: a descriptive summary of measurement tools

Objective: A systematic review was conducted to identify and quality assess how studies published since 1999 have measured and reported the usage of hearing aids in older adults. The relationship between usage and other dimensions of hearing aid outcome, age and hearing loss are summarised. Data sources: Articles were identified through systematic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, The University of Nottingham Online Catalogue, Web of Science and through reference checking. Study eligibility criteria: (1) participants aged fifty years or over with sensori-neural hearing loss, (2) provision of an air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(s) and (4) published between 1999 and 2011. Results: Of the initial 1933 papers obtained from the searches, a total of 64 were found eligible for review and were quality assessed on six dimensions: study design, choice of outcome instruments, level of reporting (usage, age, and audiometry) and cross validation of usage measures. Five papers were rated as being of high quality (scoring 10–12), 35 papers were rated as being of moderate quality (scoring 7–9), 22 as low quality (scoring 4–6) and two as very low quality (scoring 0–2). Fifteen different methods were identified for assessing the usage of hearing aids. Conclusions: Generally, the usage data reviewed was not well specified. There was a lack of consistency and robustness in the way that usage of hearing aids was assessed and categorised. There is a need for more standardised level of reporting of hearing aid usage data to further understand the relationship between usage and hearing aid outcomes

Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?

Objective: Age-related hearing loss is an increasingly important public health problem affecting approximately 40% of 55–74 year olds. The primary clinical management intervention for people with hearing loss is hearing aids, however, the majority (80%) of adults aged 55–74 years who would benefit from a hearing aid, do not use them. Furthermore, many people given a hearing aid do not wear it. The aim was to collate the available evidence as to the potential reasons for non-use of hearing aids among people who have been fitted with at least one. Design: Data were gathered via the use of a scoping study. Study sample: A comprehensive search strategy identified 10 articles reporting reasons for non-use of hearing aids. Results: A number of reasons were given, including hearing aid value, fit and comfort and maintenance of the hearing aid, attitude, device factors, financial reasons, psycho-social/situational factors, healthcare professionals attitudes, ear problems, and appearance. Conclusions: The most important issues were around hearing aid value, i.e. the hearing aid not providing enough benefit, and comfort related to wearing the hearing aid. Identifying factors that affect hearing aid usage are necessary for devising appropriate rehabilitation strategies to ensure greater use of hearing aids

A data-driven synthesis of research evidence for domains of hearing loss, as reported by adults with hearing loss and their communication partners

A number of assessment tools exist to evaluate the impact of hearing loss, with little consensus among researchers as to either preference or psychometric adequacy. The item content of hearing loss assessment tools should seek to capture the impact of hearing loss on everyday life, but to date no one has synthesized the range of hearing loss complaints from the perspectives of the person with hearing loss and their communication partner. The current review aims to synthesize the evidence on person with hearing loss- and communication partner-reported complaints of hearing loss. Searches were conducted in Cos Conference Papers Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica Database, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify publications from May 1982 to August 2015. A manual search of four relevant journals updated the search to May 2017. Of the 9,516 titles identified, 78 records (comprising 20,306 participants) met inclusion criteria and were taken through to data collection. Data were analyzed using meta-ethnography to form domains representing the person with hearing loss- and communication partner-reported complaints of hearing loss as reported in research. Domains and subdomains mutual to both perspectives are related to ‘‘Auditory’’ (listening, communicating, and speaking), ‘‘Social’’ (relationships, isolation, social life, occupational, and interventions), and ‘‘Self’’ (effort and fatigue, emotions, identity, and stigma). Our framework contributes fundamental new knowledge and a unique resource that enables researchers and clinicians to consider the broader impacts of hearing loss. Our findings can also be used to guide questions during diagnostic assessment and to evaluate existing measures of hearing loss

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Internet-based interventions are emerging as an alternative way of delivering accessible healthcare for various conditions including hearing and balance disorders. A comprehensive review regarding the evidence-base of Internet-based interventions for auditory-related conditions is required to determine the existing evidence of their efficacy and effectiveness. The objective of the current protocol is to provide the methodology for a systematic review regarding the effects of Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. Method: This protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. Electronic database searches will include EBSCOhost, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register performed by two researchers. This will be complemented by searching other resources such as the reference lists for included studies to identify studies meeting the eligibility for inclusion with regard to study designs, participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for randomised trials will be used for the bias assessments in the included studies. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined. Discussion: The result of this systematic review will be of value to establish the effects of Internet-based interventions for hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. This will be of importance to guide future planning of auditory intervention research and clinical services by healthcare providers, researchers, consumers and stakeholders

Costs and effectiveness of hearing aid rehabilitation in the elderly

Abstract Hearing aid (HA) rehabilitation was studied in northern Finland. The costs of HA fitting were examined at two hospitals, Kainuu Central Hospital and Oulu University Hospital. The patients were visited and interviewed at their home and use of HAs was charted. The benefit of HAs was evaluated using generic and disease-specific questionnaires. The effect of follow-up counselling of HA users on HA use and on the benefit of HAs was studied. The proportion of all HA possessors that are regular users has clearly increased during the past twenty years, and the number of non-users, in particular, has decreased significantly. Only 5.3% of first fitted HAs were not in use in 2001. The costs of HA fitting in 2000 were approximately € 900. There was not much difference in the costs between Kainuu Central Hospital and Oulu University Hospital. The price of a HA accounted for somewhat less than half of the total hospital costs, and the costs of the audiology personnel made up roughly a third of the overall costs. Emotional problems of HA users were significant before HA fitting, but six months after HA fitting the number of patients who felt handicapped by their hearing problems had decreased significantly. This could be seen in the results of both the social and the emotional items of the disease-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measure, the short version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE-S). The benefit could not, however, be shown with the generic HRQOL instrument, the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D), which apparently lacks sensitivity for measuring changes brought about by audiological intervention. Follow-up counselling of HA users can significantly increase HA use and decrease the number of non-users. It can also significantly increase the users' handling skills. The cost of follow-up counselling is approximately € 83 per fitted HA, which is an 8.7% increment to the calculated cost of fitting a HA

Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficiency of the Swiss hearing aid dispensing system, and to determine factors contributing to successful hearing aid provision. A national cross sectional survey was performed using a postal questionnaire with 8707 adult hearing aid owners (response rate 62%). To correct results for a potential non-response bias, 193 randomly selected non-respondents were contacted by telephone. Data on hearing loss and type of hearing aid were provided by the hearing aid dispensing practice. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of non-regular use and dissatisfaction. Eighty-five percent used their device(s) regularly, 12% only occasionally and 3% never. Eighty percent were satisfied with their aids. Non-regular use of hearing aids was significantly associated with age, gender, regional language, total duration of use, type of amplification, hearing aid category, hearing loss, and dissatisfaction with and difficulties in managing the aid. Dissatisfaction was associated with regional language, total duration of use, difficulties in managing the aid, and non-regular use. It was concluded that rates of regular hearing aid use and satisfaction are high in Switzerland