Cost Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for the Treatment of Subjective Tinnitus in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation for the treatment of subjective tinnitus using different modalities of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in Australia. DESIGN: A decision tree model was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis for CBT to determine the cost effectiveness for tinnitus treatments, in terms of cost per responder and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), from a health system perspective using a 2-year time horizon. Meta-analysis was used to differentiate the levels of effectiveness between three delivery methods for CBT: individual face-to-face care (fCBT), group sessions (gCBT), and a supported internet program (iCBT). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) explored the uncertainty surrounding model inputs and outcomes. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with no treatment, and as net monetary benefit at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, the incremental cost per responder was $700 for gCBT, $871 for iCBT, and $1380 for fCBT. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35,363 per QALY for fCBT, $17,935 per QALY for gCBT, and $22,321 per QALY for iCBT compared with no treatment, although there was substantial uncertainty around the QALY gain for responders. Net monetary benefit was $356 (fCBT), $555 (gCBT), and $487 (iCBT), indicating the treatments were cost effective compared with no treatment. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the results were most sensitive to the probability of a positive response to treatment and treatment length. The PSA found the probability of being cost effective compared with no treatment for gCBT was 99.8%, iCBT 98.4%, and fCBT 71.5% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY, although QALY gain remained at a fixed value in the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: CBT for tinnitus was likely to be cost effective compared with no treatment regardless of treatment modality, assuming they are not mutually exclusive. Of the interventions, gCBT was the lowest cost per responder and lowest cost per QALY. Internet CBT obtained comparable economic outcomes due to similar treatment effectiveness and cost. Group CBT and iCBT warrant greater adoption in clinical practice for the treatment of subjective tinnitus. Further research on preference-based utility measures for varying levels of tinnitus severity and the durability of treatment effect is required to enhance the quality of economic evaluation in this field.

The hearing health of live-music sound engineers.

Most studies of hearing loss prevention in the music industry focus on the risk of hearing injury to musicians. However, live-music sound engineers (LMSE) may also be at risk of hearing injury due to their work-related sound exposure. We studied 27 LMSE, all of whom underwent otologic examination, including audiometry, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, speech discrimination and uncomfortable loudness levels, and completed a questionnaire investigating their history of sound exposure and use of hearing protectors. Hearing thresholds were significantly poorer than normative data across several frequencies, and a substantial proportion reported constant tinnitus (30%) and reduced sound tolerance (41%). Use of hearing protection was relatively low, with many reporting interference with their job when using it. Our results suggest that LMSE are at risk of hearing injury due to their work-related sound exposure.

Does person-centred care improve outcomes for musicians fitted with hearing protectors?

Objective: To reduce the risk of hearing injury, musicians are often recommended custom-made musicians' hearing protectors (MHP). Studies report benefits of use however, many still report challenges leading to relatively low uptake and inconsistent usage. Person-centred approaches to health have been shown to improve patient outcomes, and these principles may be translatable to musicians' hearing care. The aim was to investigate if use of, and satisfaction with, MHP is influenced by the treatment delivered to musicians by audiologists.Design: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four conditions that varied in extent of person-centred care.Study sample: Forty-two musicians with an interest in purchasing MHP were recruited.Results: Satisfaction with MHP was high overall and users reported a reduction in incidence of tinnitus. Participants reported few issues related to sound quality, however insertion difficulty was the main problem reported. Only one musician self-identified the need for alterations to their MHP.Conclusions: Adoption of person-centred approaches to MHP was not found to increase likelihood of use, however, satisfaction was high across all conditions. Most often, the need for MHP alterations were clinician-identified during fitting appointments or follow-up contact, underscoring the importance of including these components when providing audiological services to musicians.

Caring for musicians' ears: insights from audiologists and manufacturers reveal need for evidence-based guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated clinical care delivered to musicians in Australia by audiologists and manufacturers of musicians' hearing protectors (MHP). DESIGN: Audiologists with experience treating musicians were invited to complete a survey on their service delivery. A second survey was administered to manufacturers of MHPs. STUDY SAMPLE: Four manufacturers of MHP and 31 audiologists completed the surveys. Post hoc analyses were performed comparing the responses of audiologists with more versus less clinical experience; and those with and without musical training. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the audiological care provided to musicians. Only one-third of audiologists performed pure-tone audiometry prior to MHP fitting, and there was little consistency across the sample in relation to impression taking, preferred attenuation or selection of canal length. There was also significant variation in the manufacturers' approach to MHP, each of whom provided different recommendations regarding preferred impression techniques and material viscosity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study reveal lack of consistency across the hearing healthcare sector with respect to care of musicians' hearing, with potential to impact upon the satisfaction with, and usage of, MHP. There is need for evidence-based, best practice guidelines and training to support clinical audiologists in providing optimal care.