Global return on investment and cost-effectiveness of WHO's HEAR interventions for hearing loss: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: To address the growing prevalence of hearing loss, WHO has identified a compendium of key evidence-based ear and hearing care interventions to be included within countries' universal health coverage packages. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and their budgetary effect for countries, we aimed to analyse the investment required to scale up services from baseline to recommended levels, and the return to society for every US$1 invested in the compendium. METHODS: We did a modelling study using the proposed set of WHO interventions (summarised under the acronym HEAR: hearing screening and intervention for newborn babies and infants, pre-school and school-age children, older adults, and adults at higher risk of hearing loss; ear disease prevention and management; access to technologies such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, or hearing assistive technologies; and rehabilitation service provision), which span the life course and include screening and management of hearing loss and related ear diseases, costs and benefits for the national population cohorts of 172 countries. The return on investment was analysed for the period between 2020 and 2030 using three scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario, a progress scenario with a scale-up to 50% of recommended coverage, and an ambitious scenario with scale-up to 90% of recommended coverage. Using data for hearing loss burden from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, a transition model with three states (general population, diagnosed, and those who have died) was developed to model the national populations in countries. For the return-on-investment analysis, the monetary value of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted in addition to productivity gains were compared against the investment required in each scenario. FINDINGS: Scaling up ear and hearing care interventions to 90% requires an overall global investment of US$238·8 billion over 10 years. Over a 10-year period, this investment promises substantial health gains with more than 130 million DALYs averted. These gains translate to a monetary value of more than US$1·3 trillion. In addition, investment in hearing care will result in productivity benefits of more than US$2 trillion at the global level by 2030. Together, these benefits correspond to a return of nearly US$15 for every US$1 invested. INTERPRETATION: This is the first-ever global investment case for integrating ear and hearing care interventions in countries' universal health coverage services. The findings show the economic benefits of investing in this compendium and provide the basis for facilitating the increase of country's health budget for strengthening ear and hearing care services. FUNDING: None.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing routine hearing screening using a tablet audiometer for pediatric cystic fibrosis patients receiving high-dose IV aminoglycosides.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients who receive high-dose aminoglycosides can acquire inner ear damage and subsequent hearing loss. There is no current standard protocol for assessing ototoxicity in CF centers in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-implemented routine hearing screening for ototoxicity among pediatric patients using a clinically validated tablet audiometer to allow for earlier detection of hearing loss in an exploratory analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing routine screening with monthly cycles over a 3-year time horizon. The model measured the difference in promptly detected hearing loss, delayed detected hearing loss, and undetected hearing loss, compared with current screening practices. Model inputs were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Primary model outcomes included total health care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with a 3% yearly discount. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, routine screening using a tablet audiometer increased promptly detected hearing loss by 8 patients. There was an incremental gain of 3.2 QALYs at an increased cost of $333,826 compared with current screening practices. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $103,771 per QALY. In the 1-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER ranged between $64,345 and $258,830 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Using a tablet audiometer for routine hearing screening appears to be a cost-effective option at a $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold when only considering the immediate benefits gained. This analysis did not examine the long-term effects of early detection in language development for pediatric patients. DISCLOSURES: Huang reports funding from the University of North Carolina and GlaxoSmithKline Health Outcomes Fellowship. GlaxoSmithKline had no involvement in the study creation, analysis, or manuscript composition. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Employment Outcomes After a Birth of a Child with a Developmental Disability: A National Nested Case-Control Study.

Using records from the National Insurance Institute of Israel, we recognized all children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD, N = 8072) or hearing loss (HL, N = 2231) born in Israel between 2005 and 2010. Typical developed children were taken from a random 20% sample of children born during the same years (N = 227,492). Analyses were adjusted for year of birth, population group, parental ages, parental education, child birth order and peripherality. Working women, who gave birth to children with either ASD or HL, were at increased risk of not maintaining their working status over the 5 years after birth. There is a decreased ratio between household wage after and before birth, in families with children with either ASD or HL.

Health Literacy and Hearing Healthcare Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether health literacy is associated with: 1) degree of hearing loss at initial presentation for audiogram and 2) hearing aid adoption for hearing aid candidates. METHODS: We identified 1376 patients who underwent audiometric testing and completed a brief health literacy questionnaire at our institution. The association between health literacy and degree of hearing loss at initial presentation was examined using linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, marital status, education level, race, language, employment status, and insurance coverage. The association between health literacy and hearing aid adoption was examined in the subset of patients identified as hearing aid candidates using logistic regression, adjusted for demographic factors and insurance coverage. RESULTS: Patients with inadequate health literacy were more likely to present with more severe hearing loss (adjusted mean pure-tone average [PTA] difference, 5.38 dB, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.75 to 8.01). For hearing aid candidates (n = 472 [41.6%]), health literacy was not associated with hearing aid adoption rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.76). Hearing aid coverage through Medicaid (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.37), and moderate (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.69) or moderate-severe (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.16) hearing loss were associated with hearing aid adoption. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, patients with low health literacy are more likely to present with higher degrees of hearing loss, but no less likely to obtain hearing aids compared with patients with adequate health literacy. Hearing loss severity and hearing aid coverage by insurance appear to be the main drivers of hearing aid adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E1688-E1694, 2021.

Genetics of Hearing Impairment in North-Eastern Romania-A Cost-Effective Improved Diagnosis and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: We have investigated the main genetic causes for non-syndromic hearing impairment (NSHI) in the hearing impairment individuals from the North-Eastern Romania and proposed a cost-effective diagnosis protocol. METHODS: MLPA followed by Sanger Sequencing were used for all 291 patients included in this study. RESULTS: MLPA revealed abnormal results in 141 cases (48.45%): 57 (40.5%) were c.35delG homozygous, 26 (18.44%) were c.35delG heterozygous, 14 (9.93%) were compound heterozygous and 16 (11.35%) had other types of variants. The entire coding region of GJB2 was sequenced and out of 150 patients with normal results at MLPA, 29.33% had abnormal results: variants in heterozygous state: c.71G>A (28%), c.457G>A (20%), c.269T>C (12%), c.109G>A (12%), c.100A>T (12%), c.551G>C (8%). Out of 26 patients with c.35delG in heterozygous state, 38.46% were in fact compound heterozygous. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two variants: c.109G>A and c.100A>T that have not been reported in any study from Romania. MLPA is an inexpensive, rapid and reliable technique that could be a cost-effective diagnosis method, useful for patients with hearing impairment. It can be adaptable for the mutation spectrum in every population and followed by Sanger sequencing can provide a genetic diagnosis for patients with different degrees of hearing impairment.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection in China Using a Markov Model.

Importance: Congenital cytomegalovirus infection (cCMVi) is one of the most common infections associated with childhood hearing loss. Prevention and mitigation of cCMVi-related hearing loss will require an increase in newborn screening, which is not yet available in China. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of newborn screening strategies for cCMVi from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision tree for a simulated cohort population of 15 000 000 live births was developed to compare the costs and health effects of 3 mutually exclusive interventions: (1) no screening, (2) targeted screening using CMV polymerase chain reaction assay for newborns who fail a universal hearing screening, and (3) universal screening for CMV among all newborns. Markov diagrams were used to evaluate the lifetime horizon (76 years). Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost, hearing-related health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated based on a direct medical costs perspective. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2018 US dollars. Results: Incidence of cCMVi among newborns was reported to be approximately 0.7% in China. Targeted screening was less costly but also less effective than universal screening, identifying 41% of cases needing antiviral treatment and preventing nearly half of less severe or profound hearing loss. To avoid 1 CMV-related severe or profound hearing loss, 13 and 16 newborns need to be treated by targeted and universal screening, respectively. The ICERs of targeted and universal screening vs no screening were $79 and $2087 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, at the discounted rate of 3.5%. Both screening options were cost-effective for the Chinese health care system based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 × gross domestic product per capita. The sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence of cCMVi, as well as diagnosis and treatment costs, were key factors that may be associated with decision-making. Conclusions and Relevance: To achieve cost-effectiveness and best health outcomes, universal screening could be considered for the Chinese population. While the results are specific to China, the model may easily be adapted for other countries.

Hearing Health Care Belongs to Primary Care.

Like many areas of health care, hearing loss is best managed when hearing professionals collaborate closely with physicians. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are uniquely suited to manage hearing loss because 1) patients trust their PCP; 2) PCPs have insight into the overall health and well-being of their patients; and 3) the PCP workforce is large enough to make a meaningful impact. Accountable care organizations, clinically integrated networks, and patient-centered medical homes are perfectly suited to be a positive force in the hearing health of their patients.

Cochlear implantation in different socioeconomic groups - bursting the myth.

OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implantation does wonders for children suffering from severe to profound hearing loss, especially when the child is less than 12 months of age. However, most studies indicate that detection and implantation are done well beyond that age, owing to poor socioeconomic status, parental education, and income. Taking into account The Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme in Tamil Nadu, which provides cochlear implantation free of cost, this study aims to describe ages at presentation and nutritional factors among different socioeconomic classes. METHODS: A randomized retrospective comparative study was done between two groups of children based on the socioeconomic status of the family. Group A included children with a parental income of less than Rs. 72,000 and the cost of surgery covered by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme and group B included children with a parental income of more than 72,000 and the cost of surgery covered by the family. Three parameters were considered and compared-the age at presentation to the hospital for diagnosis and management and the weight and hemoglobin. The results were computed, and statistical analysis done. RESULTS: There was a negligible difference between the age at presentation between the two groups with the mean age for children belonging to group A being 2.906563 and the mean age for children belonging to group B being 3.540625. Weight among the two groups showed a significant difference with a p-value of 0.023664 at p < 0.05. The difference in hemoglobin values was found to be insignificant, with mean values being 11.0375 g/dl and 11.7375 g/dl for groups A and B respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has concluded sufficient awareness among different strata of society, despite economical differences, over cochlear implant programs owing to government initiatives of educating people and supporting them with necessary health benefits. Tamil Nadu, as a responsible state of a developing nation, has been proactive in ensuring the accessibility and reach of the health care system in this regard.

Hearing loss and employment: a systematic review of the association between hearing loss and employment among adults.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects over 1.3 billion individuals worldwide, with the greatest burden among adults. Little is known regarding the association between adult-onset hearing loss and employment. METHODS: Seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ABI/Inform Collection, Business Source Ultimate, Web of Science and Scopus) were searched through to October 2018. The key word terms used related to hearing loss and employment, excluding paediatric or congenital hearing loss and deaf or culturally deaf populations. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 13 144 articles. A total of 7494 articles underwent title and abstract screening, and 243 underwent full-text review. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies were set in 10 predominantly high-income countries. Seven of the 25 studies analysed regionally or nationally representative datasets and controlled for key variables. Six of these seven studies reported associations between hearing loss and employment. CONCLUSION: The highest quality studies currently available indicate that adult-onset hearing loss is associated with unemployment. However, considerable heterogeneity exists, and more rigorous studies that include low- and middle-income countries are needed.

Long-Term Incidence and Predictors of Significant Hearing Loss Requiring Hearing Assistive Devices Among Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss is a significant late effect among childhood cancer survivors. Recent guidelines note insufficient evidence to quantify its natural history or risk associated with specific exposures. We examined the long-term incidence and predictors of hearing loss requiring hearing amplification devices (HADs) using population-based health care data. METHODS: In Ontario, Canada, HAD costs are subsidized by the Assistive Devices Program (ADP). Ontario children < 18 years of age at cancer diagnosis between 1987 and 2016 were identified and linked to ADP claims. Cumulative HAD incidence was compared between cases and matched controls. Patient, disease, and treatment predictors of HAD were examined. RESULTS: We identified 11,842 cases and 59,210 controls. Cases were at higher risk for HAD (hazard ratio [HR], 12.8; 95% CI, 9.8 to 16.7; P < .001). The cumulative incidence of HAD among survivors was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.7% to 2.5%) at 20 years and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.8% to 12.1%) at 30 years post-diagnosis. The 30-year incidence was highest in neuroblastoma (10.7%; 95% CI, 3.8% to 21.7%) and hepatoblastoma (16.2%; 95% CI, 8.6% to 26.0%) survivors. Predictors of HAD in multivariable analyses included age 0-4 years at diagnosis (v 5-9 years; HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; P < .001). Relative to no cisplatin exposure, patients receiving < 200 mg/m2 were not at greater risk, unlike those receiving higher cumulative doses. Relative to no cranial or facial radiation, those who had received ≤ 32.00 Gy were at no higher risk, unlike those who had received > 32.00 Gy. Carboplatin exposure was not associated with HAD. CONCLUSION: Childhood cancer survivors are at elevated risk for requiring HAD, which continues to increase between 20 and 30 years after diagnosis. Thresholds of cisplatin and radiation exposure exist, above which risk substantially increases. Prolonged monitoring and trials of otoprotective agents are warranted in high-risk populations.

Lifetime cost of unilateral cochlear implants in adults: a Monte Carlo simulation.

BACKROUND/OBJECTIVE: Due to increasing prevalence of hearing loss and relaxation of candidacy criteria of cochlear implant (CI) supply, the number of implantations is likely to further increase. Statutory health insurances are facing ever more urgent financing challenges since CI treatment causes high life-long costs. Additionally, increasing life expectancy and earlier implantation may extend therapy time and cost. With every case being individual, this study aims to calculate the possible lifetime cost of unilateral CI treatment in adults including stochastic uncertainties. METHODS: Taking a statutory health insurance perspective, relevant cost components of CI therapy and their values were identified. The Monte Carlo method was used to simulate lifetime cost considering age at first implantation and distributions of costrelevant variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the most crucial variables impacting on lifetime cost. RESULTS: Lifetime cost of CI treatment varies according to age at first implantation, respectively remaining lifetime; the earlier the implantation, the higher the overall cost. According to our simulation, the average lifetime cost for an adult patient first implanted between the age of 20-80 is at 53,030 € (present value). Cost of implantation and periodic speech processor exchanges show the highest impact on the total cost. DISCUSSION: Health care systems could face rising expenses for CI supply by technical development. Innovative life-long CIs could achieve significant savings per case that could finance additional implant cost. Until then, further targeted research will be required. CONCLUSION: CI-related cost for statutory health insurance crucially depends on the patient-side demand for cochlear implants. Therefore, cost forecasts must also consider the development of demand.

Cost-effectiveness of School Hearing Screening Programs: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: School hearing screening is a public health intervention that can improve care for children who experience hearing loss that is not detected on or develops after newborn screening. However, implementation of school hearing screening is sporadic and supported by mixed evidence to its economic benefit. This scoping review provides a summary of all published cost-effectiveness studies regarding school hearing screening programs globally. At the time of this review, there were no previously published reviews of a similar nature. DATA SOURCES: A structured search was applied to 4 databases: PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: The database search was carried out by 2 independent researchers, and results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies that included a cost analysis of screening programs for school-aged children in the school environment were eligible for inclusion. Studies that involved evaluations of only neonatal or preschool programs were excluded. RESULTS: Four of the 5 studies that conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis reported that school hearing screening was cost-effective through the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) via either quality- or disability-adjusted life years. One study reported that a new school hearing screening program dominated the existing program; 2 studies reported ICERs ranging from 1079 to 4304 international dollars; and 1 study reported an ICER of £2445. One study reported that school-entry hearing screening was not cost-effective versus no screening. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies concluded that school hearing screening was cost-effective. However, significant differences in methodology and region-specific estimates of model inputs limit the generalizability of these findings.

Patient safety and the annulment of medical clearance exams for hearing aids: Are we "closing the book" too soon?

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of medical clearance exams by otolaryngologists prior to the distribution of hearing aids to patients with hearing loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medical records of 313 consecutive hearing-impaired individuals seeking financial assistance for hearing aids from the Lions Hearing Center of Michigan and who presented for medical clearance exams between January 2014 and May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Separate determinations were made for each patient about (1) benefit from the exam and (2) avoidance of significant harm. RESULTS: Majority (64.2%; n = 201) of patients benefited from medical clearance exams. Furthermore, 5.4% of patients (n = 17) were found to have avoided significant harm due to administration of the medical clearance exam. Finally, 14.4% (n = 45) were offered alternative interventions over conventional hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: Medical clearance exams are beneficial to a majority of patients with hearing loss prior to receiving hearing aids. With the impending arrival of over-the-counter hearing aids in the United States, special consideration should be placed on educating the general public about the importance of the medical evaluation prior to purchasing any type of hearing aid.

Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants. RESULTS: We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, P < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, P < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; P < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.

Effectiveness of health-promoting activities in the area of general hearing screening tests in newborns in Poland.

INTRODUCTION: An analysis of the impact of health promotion efforts as part of the Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program demonstrated diagnostic efficacy. The health promotion efforts had been efficiently implemented via a proper execution of this long-term Program by the Great Orchestra for Christmas Charity (WOSP) foundation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to demonstrate the impact of health promotion efforts by public benefit organizations by analyzing the WOSP foundation's involvement in the Program in Poland during 2003-2015. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Statistical data for 2003-2015 were obtained from the database of the Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngeal Oncology at Poznan University of Medical Sciences. The analyzed data included the rates of hearing-impairment detection (phase 1), diagnosis (phase 2), and treatment (phase 3) in the newborns included in the Program, as well as the documentation of expenditures based on WOSP's foundation annual financial reports. RESULTS: A total of 4,672,704 newborns were screened from 2003-2015, which amounted to approximately 360,000 screened patients per year. During the analyzed 12 years of the Program, the mean proportion of children who underwent screening was 96.1%, with an observable, gradual increase in the number of children undergoing diagnostic assessments (phase 2) for a suspected hearing impairment, with the largest amount of money having been allocated to the Program implementation and expended in its early stages. The total cost of financing the Program by the year 2015 was 51,841,712 PLN. CONCLUSIONS: The Polish Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program resulted in an improvement in the quality in the screening test, ensured more thorough diagnostics, and shortened the time needed to implement the appropriate treatment.

Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors associated with hearing loss in older adults: a cross-sectional study of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA).

OBJECTIVES: Aims were (1) to examine whether socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with hearing loss (HL) among older adults in England and (2) whether major modifiable lifestyle factors (high body mass index, physical inactivity, tobacco consumption and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines) are associated with HL after controlling for non-modifiable demographic factors and SEP. SETTING: We used data from the wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which is a longitudinal household survey dataset of a representative sample of people aged 50 and older. PARTICIPANTS: The final analytical sample was 8529 participants aged 50-89 that gave consent to have their hearing acuity objectively measured by a screening audiometry device and did not have any ear infection. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: HL defined as >35 dBHL at 3.0 kHz (better-hearing ear). Those with HL were further subdivided into two categories depending on the number of tones heard at 3.0 kHz. RESULTS: HL was identified in 32.1% of men and 22.3% of women aged 50-89. Those in a lower SEP were up to two times more likely to have HL; the adjusted odds of HL were higher for those with no qualifications versus those with a degree/higher education (men: OR 1.87, 95%CI 1.47 to 2.38, women: OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.95), those in routine/manual occupations versus those in managerial/professional occupations (men: OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.43 to 2.63, women: OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.54), and those in the lowest versus the highest income and wealth quintiles (men: OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.44, women: OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.85 to 2.16, and men: OR1.72, 95%CI 1.26 to 2.35, women: OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.58, respectively). All regression models showed that socioeconomic and the modifiable lifestyle factors were strongly associated with HL after controlling for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors are associated with HL among older adults as strongly as core demographic risk factors, such as age and gender. Socioeconomic inequalities and modifiable lifestyle behaviours need to be targeted by the health policy strategies, as an important step in designing interventions for individuals that face hearing health inequalities.

Effects of auditory and socio-demographic variables on discontinuation of hearing aid use among older adults with hearing loss fitted in the Chilean public health sector.

BACKGROUND: The percentage of older adults with hearing loss who stop using their hearing aids and the variables associated with this phenomenon have not been systematically investigated in South America. This problem is relevant to the region since countries such as Colombia, Brazil and Chile have public programmes that provide hearing aids to older adults. The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of older adults fitted with a hearing aid at a public hospital in Chile who subsequently stop using it and the auditory and socio-demographic variables associated with the hazard of discontinuing hearing aid use. METHODS: A group that included 355 older adults who had been fitted with a hearing aid was studied retrospectively. In a structured interview, participants were asked about socio-demographic variables and answered part of the Chilean National Survey on Health, evaluating self-perceived hearing loss and responding to questions about discontinuation of hearing aid use and their satisfaction with the device. Survival models were applied to determine the hazard of stopping hearing aid use in relation to the variables of interest. RESULTS: The rate of discontinuation of hearing aid use reached 21.7%. Older adults stopped using their hearing aids mainly during the first 5-6 months post-fitting, and then this number steadily increased. The income fifth quintile was 2.56 times less likely to stop using the hearing aid compared to the first. Those who self-reported that they could not hear correctly without the hearing aid were 2.62 times less likely to stop using it compared to those who reported normal hearing. The group that was very dissatisfied with the hearing aid was 20.86 times more likely to discontinue use than those who reported satisfaction with the device. CONCLUSIONS: Socio-demographic variables such as economic income and auditory factors such as self-perceived hearing loss and satisfaction with the device were significantly associated with the hazard of stopping hearing aid use. Self-perceived hearing loss should be considered part of the candidacy criteria for hearing aids in older adults in Chile and other (developing) countries.

Cultural Adaptation of a Community-Based Hearing Health Intervention for Korean American Older Adults with Hearing Loss.

Although hearing loss is known to be associated with many adverse health outcomes in older adults, current hearing healthcare remains expensive and inaccessible to most ethnic minorities in the US. We aim to adapt an affordable, community-based hearing intervention to older Korean Americans (KAs), describe the cultural adaption process, and report pilot trial outcomes. We undertook the first four stages of Barrera & Castro's cultural adaptation framework: information gathering, preliminary adaptation design, adaptation test, and adaptation refinement in 15 older KAs with hearing loss and 15 of their communication partners. We developed a culturally adapted intervention consisting of provision of an affordable listening device and aural rehabilitative training. Six weeks post-intervention, participants' mean hearing handicap score (range: 0-40) reduced from 15.7 to 6.4. Communication partners demonstrated improved social-emotional function. Post-intervention focus group revealed increased hearing benefit, confidence in hearing health navigation, and awareness in hearing health among study participants. The adapted intervention was well-accepted and feasible among older KAs. This study is the first to report the cultural adaptation process of a hearing care model into older KAs and its methodology may be applied to other minority groups.

Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing loss detected at the universal newborn hearing screen: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) can affect speech, language, and wider outcomes. Adverse effects are mitigated through universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early intervention. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence of UNHS-detected PCHL (bilateral loss ≥26 dB HL) and its variation by admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). A secondary objective was to report UNHS programme performance (PROSPERO: CRD42016051267). DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases were interrogated in January 2017, with further reports identified from article citations and unpublished literature (November 2017). STUDY SELECTION: UNHS reports from very highly-developed (VHD) countries with relevant prevalence and performance data; no language or date restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. RESULTS: We identified 41 eligible reports from 32 study populations (1799863 screened infants) in 6195 non-duplicate references. Pooled UNHS-detected PCHL prevalence was 1.1 per 1000 screened children (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9, 1.3; I2 = 89.2%). This was 6.9 times (95% CI: 3.8, 12.5) higher among those admitted to NICU. Smaller studies were significantly associated with higher prevalences (Egger's test: p = 0.02). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89-100% and 92-100% respectively, positive predictive values from 2-84%, with all negative predictive values 100%. LIMITATIONS: Results are generalisable to VHD countries only. Estimates and inferences were limited by available data. CONCLUSIONS: In VHD countries, 1 per 1000 screened newborns require referral to clinical services for PCHL. Prevalence is higher in those admitted to NICU. Improved reporting would support further examination of screen performance and child demographics.