Expanding Access: Cost-effectiveness of Cochlear Implantation and Deaf Education in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation (CI) with mainstream education and deaf education with sign language for treatment of children with profound sensorineural hearing loss in low- and lower-middle income countries in Asia. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3. RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39). CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.

Auditory Training for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Survey and Cost Analysis Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were as follows: (a) to describe audiologists' practices toward auditory training (AT) for adult cochlear implant (CI) users with a postlingual hearing loss; and (b) to assess the cost of different AT methods for clients and service providers in comparison with no AT delivery. DESIGN: A survey was distributed to approximately 230 Australian CI audiologists to investigate the range, magnitude, and rationale of AT practices adopted as part of rehabilitation services with adult CI users. The cost of these different AT practices was then estimated from the perspectives of both clients and service providers, and compared against no AT delivery. RESULTS: Seventy-eight audiologists responded to at least one section of the survey (16% to 33% response rate), of which 85.5% reported that they viewed AT as a necessary component of rehabilitation. Home-based and face-to-face were the methods most frequently adopted to deliver AT. Methods used during training, such as stimuli type, feedback, and encouragement for training adherence, varied across respondents. The cost analysis indicated that home-based training resulted in the lowest program costs, whereas face-to-face AT (when delivered independently from routine appointments) was the method with highest cost for clients and service providers. CONCLUSIONS: The type of AT, recommended frequency of sessions, and overall duration of programs varied widely across respondents. Costs incurred by clients depended mainly on whether the AT was home-based or clinician-led (i.e., face-to-face, group-based), program fees, and travel arrangements made by clients, as well as clinicians' wages and the method chosen to deliver AT.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bimodal Stimulation Compared to Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Bilateral Severe to Profound Deafness.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of severe-profoundly deaf adult unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users receive bimodal stimulation; that is, they use a conventional acoustic hearing aid (HA) in their nonimplanted ear. The combination of electric and contralateral acoustic hearing provides additional benefits to hearing and also to general health-related quality of life compared with unilateral CI use. Bilateral CI is a treatment alternative to both unilateral CI and bimodal stimulation in some healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of bimodal stimulation compared with other management options for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness. DESIGN: The economic evaluation took the form of a cost-utility analysis and compared bimodal stimulation (CI+HA) to two treatment alternatives: unilateral and bilateral CI. The analysis used a public healthcare system perspective based on data from the United Kingdom and the United States. Costs and health benefits were identified for both alternatives and estimated across a patient's lifetime using Markov state transition models. Utilities were based on Health Utilities Index estimates, and health outcomes were expressed in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The results were presented using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio and the Net Monetary Benefit approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of bimodal stimulation. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the degree of overall uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulation. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and analysis of covariance identified parameters to which the model was most sensitive; that is, whose values had a strong influence on the intervention that was determined to be most cost-effective. A value of information analysis was performed to determine the potential value to be gained from additional research on bimodal stimulation. RESULTS: The base case model showed that bimodal stimulation was the most cost-effective treatment option with a decision certainty of 72 and 67% in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively. Despite producing more QALYs than either unilateral CI or bimodal stimulation, bilateral CI was found not to be cost-effective because it was associated with excessive costs. Compared with unilateral CI, the increased costs of bimodal stimulation were outweighed by the gain in quality of life. Bimodal stimulation was found to cost an extra £174 per person in the United Kingdom ($937 in the US) and yielded an additional 0.114 QALYs compared with unilateral CI, resulting in an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of £1521 per QALY gained in the United Kingdom ($8192/QALY in the United States). The most influential variable was the utility gained from the simultaneous use of both devices (CI+HA) compared with Unilateral CI. The value of further research was £4,383,922 at £20,000/QALY ($86,955,460 at $50,000/QALY in the United States). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the most cost-effective treatment alternative for adults with bilateral severe to profound deafness from publicly funded healthcare perspectives of the United Kingdom and United States. Bimodal stimulation was found to be more cost-effective than unilateral and bilateral CI across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. If there is scope for future research, conducting interventional designs to obtain utilities for bimodal stimulation compared with unilateral CI would reduce decision uncertainty considerably.

Amplification and aural rehabilitation in resource-constrained environments.

OBJECTIVES: This article attempts to highlight the challenges and possibilities for hearing healthcare through technology and aural rehabilitation in a resource-constrained setting, using South Africa as an example.Results and conclusionThe authors argue that it is possible to enhance service delivery by using free resources and maximising the limited existing resources. In order to provide a sustainable hearing healthcare service in developing countries, it is pertinent to understand the context where the services are needed, and not just adopt an approach developed for a different context. Audiologists in such settings need to employ strategies to develop context-specific tools, and adapt existing tools to serve the needs of the local population. Some examples, although not exhaustive, are provided in the article.

Hearing loss and social support in urban and rural communities.

OBJECTIVE: Perceived social support and hearing handicap were assessed in adults with and without hearing loss who lived in different geographical regions of Alabama. DESIGN: The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) assessed emotional and social consequences of hearing loss. The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey and the Social Functioning, Role Emotional and Mental Health scales of the SF-36 were administered. STUDY SAMPLE: Data were collected from 71 study participants with hearing loss and from 45 adults without hearing loss. RESULTS: Degree of hearing loss and outcomes from the HHIA did not differ between adults who lived in rural or urban settings. Tangible support was poorer for adults with hearing loss who lived in rural settings compared to those who lived in urban settings. For adults without hearing loss, residency was not associated with tangible support. For these adults, income was associated with other types of social support (i.e. informational support, affection, positive social interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with hearing loss living in rural areas had poor perceived tangible support. The provision of support to address a hearing loss could be worse for these adults compared to adults who lived in urban settings.

A comparison study of complications and initial follow-up costs of transcutaneous and percutaneous bone conduction devices.

BACKGROUND: The percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device can be associated with more soft tissue complications when compared to the magnetic transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device. This study aimed to determine whether fewer soft tissue complications may result in the transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device being a lower cost option in hearing rehabilitation. METHODS: This retrospective case note review included adult patients who underwent implantation with the transcutaneous Cochlear Attract (n = 22) or percutaneous Cochlear DermaLock (n = 25) bone-anchored hearing aids between September 2013 and December 2014. The number of post-operative clinic appointments, complications and treatments undertaken, and calculated cost average, were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Although the transcutaneous device was slightly more expensive than the percutaneous device, the percutaneous device was associated with a greater number of soft tissue complications and, as a result, the percutaneous device had significantly higher follow-up costs in the first six months following surgery. CONCLUSION: The transcutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device may represent a more cost-effective method of hearing rehabilitation compared to the percutaneous osseointegrated bone conduction device.

Cost implications for changing candidacy or access to service within a publicly funded healthcare system?

INTRODUCTION: Undue attention in the allocation of healthcare resources can be given to expenditures as opposed to expenditures avoided. This can be particularly apparent when expenditures avoided fall across different budget holders and budgetary pressures are strained. METHODS: The paper presents estimates of the potential savings attributable to the adoption of new hearing assistive technologies in Britain between 1992 and 2014 based on multivariate analyses of survey data. RESULTS: The reduction in service use among the hearing impaired between 1992 and 2014 is estimated to amount to between £53 and £92 million per annum. CONCLUSION: Issues in estimating the impact of widening candidature for cochlear implants on costs exist related to potential savings. This research begins to lay a firmer evidence base for such work as well as identifying some of the challenges.

Cost-utility analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a health economic assessment from the perspective of a publicly funded program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in deaf adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: Ninety patients and 52 health professionals served as proxies to estimate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation, utilizing the Health Utility Index. Three scenarios were created to reflect 1) deafness without intervention, 2) unilateral CI, and 3) bilateral CI. Cost evaluation reflected the burden on a publicly funded healthcare system. The base case included 25 years of service provision, processor upgrades every 5 years, 50% price reduction for second side, and 15% failure rate. Discounting and sensitivity analyses were applied. RESULTS: Costs were $63,632 (unilateral CI), $111,764 (bilateral CI), and $48,132 (incremental cost of second CI). The health preference gained from no intervention to unilateral CI, and to bilateral CI were 0.270 and 0.305. Incremental utility gained by the second implant was 11.5% of total. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $14,658/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for bilateral CI compared to no intervention. It was stable regardless of discounting or sensitivity analyses. ICUR was $55,020/QALY from unilateral to bilateral CI with higher uncertainties. It improved with differential discounting, further second-side price reduction, and reduced frequency of processor upgrades. ICUR worsened with reduced length of use and higher failure rates. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential bilateral CI was cost-effective when compared to no intervention, although gains were made mostly by the first implant. Cost-effectiveness compared to unilateral implantation was borderline but improved through base case variations to reflect long-term gains or cost-saving measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.

Development of a low cost assistive listening system for hearing-impaired student classroom.

This paper describes the design, development, and tests of a low cost ALS. It was designed for hearing-impaired student classrooms. It utilised digital wireless technology and was aimed to be an alternative to a popular FM ALS. Key specifications include transmitting in 2.4 GHz ISM band with eight selectable transmission channels, battery operated and chargeable, pocket size, and ranged up to thirty metres. Audio characteristics and user tests show that it is comparable to a commercial system, currently employed in our partner school. The results also show that wearing an ALS clearly improves hearing of hearing-impaired students. Long-term usage by school children will be monitored to evaluate the system robustness and durability.

Client labor: adults with hearing impairment describing their participation in their hearing help-seeking and rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The uptake and use of hearing aids is low compared to the prevalence of hearing impairment. People who seek help and take part in a hearing aid rehabilitation process participate actively in this process in several ways. PURPOSE: In order to gain more knowledge on the challenges of hearing help-seeking and hearing aid use, this qualitative study sought to understand the ways that people with hearing impairment describe themselves as active participants throughout the hearing aid rehabilitation process. RESEARCH DESIGN: In this qualitative interview study we examined the hearing rehabilitation process from the perspective of the hearing impaired. In this article we describe how the qualitative interview material was interpreted by a pragmatic qualitative thematic analysis. The analysis described in this article focused on the efforts, initiatives, actions, and participation the study participants described that they had engaged in during their rehabilitation. STUDY SAMPLE: Interviews were conducted with people with hearing impairment in Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The 34 interview participants were distributed equally between the sites, just as men and women were almost equally represented (56% women). The average age of the participants was 64. All participants had a hearing impairment in at least one ear. The participants were recruited to represent a range of experiences with hearing help-seeking and rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: With each participant one qualitative semistructured interview ranging between 1 and 2 hr was carried out. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, read through several times, and themes were identified, defined, and reviewed by an iterative process. RESULTS: From this thematic focus a concept called "client labor" has emerged. Client labor contains nine subthemes divided into three overarching groups: cognitive labor, emotional labor, and physical labor. The participants' experiences and meaning-making related to these conceptual types of efforts is described. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings have implications for the clinical encounter between people with hearing impairment and hearing health-care professionals. We suggest that a patient-centered approach that bears in mind the client's active participation could help toward improving clinical dispensing, fitting, and counseling practices with the end goal to increase hearing aid benefit and satisfaction.

Societal costs of hearing disorders: a systematic and critical review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a critical and systematic literature review of studies on societal costs due to hearing disorders. DESIGN: We used predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and other relevant websites. The review included studies written in English or Swedish between 1995 and the end of January 2012. STUDY SAMPLE: We identified four published studies and four reports that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Swedish cost studies primarily focused on costs of hearing aids. International studies with a societal perspective used different costing approaches and were limited to specific patient populations. Hearing disorders impact the social welfare system more than the medical care system. Indirect costs account for the major part and direct medical costs for a minor part of the total costs of hearing disorders. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further studies estimating societal costs for all degrees of hearing disorders, in particular since a large part of the people with hearing disorders are of working age.

Cochlear implantation: a personal and societal economic perspective examining the effects of cochlear implantation on personal income.

OBJECTIVE: Although cochlear implantation has been shown to improve quality of life, the socioeconomic benefit to the individual and society has not been thoroughly investigated. Our objective was to determine the economic impact of profound deafness and subsequent effects of unilateral cochlear implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cochlear implantation database. SETTING: An academic, tertiary care hospital. METHODS: A prospectively collected cochlear implantation database of 702 patients was reviewed. Known Canadian economic surrogates were used to estimate the personal economic impact of both deafness and unilateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures included employment rates and personal income prior to and following cochlear implantation. RESULTS: A total of 637 patients had sufficient occupational data for inclusion in the study; 36.7% suffered a negative economic impact as a result of their deafness. Cochlear implantation was associated with a significant increase in median yearly income compared to preimplantation ($42 672 vs $30 432; p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implantation not only improves quality of life but also translates into significant economic benefits for patients and the Canadian economy. These benefits appear to exceed the overall costs of cochlear implantation.

Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.

Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study of consumer preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two approaches often produce inconsistent results. The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss. Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative research: performance in quiet settings, comfort, feedback, frequency of battery replacement, purchase price, water and sweat resistance, and performance in noisy settings. The preferences of 75 outpatients with hearing loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analyzed using OLS [ordinary least squares] and logistic regression). Results were compared by examining implied willingness-to-pay and Pearson's Rho. A total of 56 respondents (75%) provided complete responses. Two thirds of respondents were male, most had sensorineural hearing loss, and most were older than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid. Both methods identified improved performance in noisy settings as the most valued attribute. Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environments (p < .001), and willingness to pay for this attribute ranged from US$2674 on the Likert to US$9000 in the conjoint analysis. The authors find a high level of concordance between the methods-a result that is in stark contrast with previous research. The authors conclude that their result stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.

Costs involved in using a cochlear implant in South Africa.

Cochlear implantation is an expensive but effective lifelong intervention for individuals with a severe-to-profound hearing loss. The primary aim of this study was to survey the short- and long-term costs of cochlear implantation. Individuals (N=154) using cochlear implants obtained from the University of Stellenbosch-Tygerberg Hospital Cochlear Implant Unit in Cape Town, South Africa were surveyed using a questionnaire and patient record review. The questionnaire used a combination of closed and open-ended questions to gather both quantitative and qualitative information. Costs were categorised as short- and long-term costs. All costs were converted to constant rands (June 2010) using the Consumer Price Index to allow for comparison in real terms over time. In the first 10 years of implantation the average estimated costs incurred by adults totalled R379 626, and by children R455 225. The initial purchase of the implant system was the most substantial cost, followed by upgrading of the processor. Travel and accommodation costs peaked in the first 2 years. On average the participants spent R2 550 per year on batteries and spares. Rehabilitation for children cost an average of R7 200. Insurance costs averaged R4 040 per year, and processor repairs R3 000 each. In addition to the upfront expense of obtaining the cochlear implant system, individuals using a cochlear implant in South Africa should be prepared for the long-term costs of maintenance, accessing the unit, support services and additional costs associated with use. Knowledge of these costs is important to ensure that individuals are successful users of their cochlear implants in the long term.

A self-fitting hearing aid: need and concept.

The need for reliable access to hearing health care services is growing globally, particularly in developing countries and in remotely located, underserved regions in many parts of the developed world. Individuals with hearing loss in these areas are at a significant disadvantage due to the scarcity of local hearing health care professionals and the high cost of hearing aids. Current approaches to making hearing rehabilitation services more readily available to underserved populations include teleaudiology and the provision of amplification devices outside of the traditional provider-client relationship. Both strategies require access to such resources as dedicated equipment and/or specially trained staff. Another possible strategy is a self-fitting hearing aid, a personal amplification device that is equipped with an onboard tone generator to enable user-controlled, automated, in situ audiometry; an onboard prescription to determine the initial hearing aid settings; and a trainable algorithm to enable user-controlled fine-tuning. The device is thus assembled, fitted, and managed by the user without the need for audiological or computer support. This article details the self-fitting concept and its potential application in both developing and developed countries. Potential advantages and disadvantages of such a device are discussed, and considerations for further investigations into the concept are presented. Overall, the concept is considered technologically viable with the main challenges anticipated to be development of clear, simple user instructions and a delivery model that ensures reliable supplies of instant-fit ear tips and batteries.

Innovative technology in hearing instruments: matching needs in the developing world.

Hearing instrument technology research is almost entirely focused on the projected needs of the consumer market in the developed world. However, two thirds of the world's population with hearing impairment live in developing countries and this proportion will increase in future, given present demographic trends. In developing regions, amplification and other hearing health needs may differ from those in industrialized nations, for cultural, health, or economic reasons. World Health Organization estimates indicate that at present only a small percentage of individuals in developing countries who are in need of amplification have access to hearing aid provision. New technologies, such as trainable hearing aids, advanced noise reduction algorithms, feedback reduction circuitry, nano coatings for hearing aid components, and innovative power options, may offer considerable potential benefits, both for individuals with hearing impairment in developing countries and for those who provide hearing health care services in these regions. This article considers the possible supporting role of innovative hearing instrument technologies in the provision of affordable hearing health care services in developing countries and highlights the need for research that considers the requirements of the majority of the world population in need of hearing instrument provision.

Comparing health care use and related costs between groups with and without hearing impairment.

This study aims to compare the use (and related costs) of different health care resources between groups of normally-hearing and hearing-impaired people. A distinction was made between hearing-related and other health care contacts. Data were collected at the baseline measurement of the national longitudinal study on hearing, and at each month during a subsequent period of six months. Hearing status was determined using an internet speech-in-noise test. The sample comprised 1295 normally-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects, aged 18-65 years. Adjusting for confounders, regression models showed that hearing-impaired respondents had significantly more contacts and higher costs for primary, secondary, and occupational care than normally-hearing respondents during the period under investigation. The differences were due to a larger number of health care contacts for which hearing impairment was the main motive to seek help. After excluding these contacts, the differences in health care use and costs between the groups were not significant. This suggests that besides hearing-related contacts, adults with hearing impairment do not make more use of health care resources than adults without hearing difficulties.