Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D

被引：89

作者：

Barton G.R. ^{[1
,2
]}

Bankart J. ^{[1
]}

Davis A.C. ^{[1
]}

Summerfield Q.A. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, University Park

[2] MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, University Park

来源：

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | 2004年 / 3卷 / 2期

关键词：

Change Score; Utility Score; Utility Measure; Health Utility Index; Estimate Cost Effectiveness;

D O I：

10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Utility scores were estimated for 609 hearing-impaired adults who completed EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and SF-6D survey instruments both before and after being provided with a hearing aid. Pre-intervention, the mean utility scores for EQ-5D (0.80) and SF-6D (0.78) were significantly higher than the mean HUI3 utility score (0.58). Post-intervention, the mean improvement in the HUI3 (0.06 change) was significantly higher than the mean improvement according to the EQ-5D (0.01 change) or SF-6D (0.01 change). The estimated cost effectiveness of hearing-aid provision is therefore likely to be dependent on which instrument is used to measure utility. © 2004 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：103 / 105

页数：2

共 14 条

[1]

Gerard K., Nicholson T., Mullee M., Et al., EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group, Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 3, pp. 91-102, (2004)

[2]

Feeny D., Furlong W., Torrance G., Et al., Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system, Med Care, 40, pp. 113-128, (2002)

[3]

Heyse J., Cook J., Carides G., Statistical considerations in analysing health care resource utilization and cost data, Economic Evaluation in Health Care, pp. 215-235, (2001)

[4]

Palmer C., Niparko J., Wyatt J., Et al., A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multi-channel cochlear implant, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 125, pp. 1221-1228, (1999)

[5]

Cheng A.K., Rubin H.R., Powe N.R., Et al., Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children, JAMA, 284, pp. 850-856, (2000)

[6]

Krabbe P., Hinderink J.B., Van Den Broek P., The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16, pp. 864-873, (2000)

[7]

Criteria of candidature for unilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults. II: Cost-effectiveness analysis, Ear Hear, 25, pp. 336-360, (2004)

[8]

Joore M.A., Van Der Stel H.H., Peters H.J., Et al., The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 129, pp. 297-304, (2003)

[9]

Bosch J.L., Hunink M.G., Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication, Qual Life Res, 9, pp. 591-601, (2000)

[10]

Conner-Spady B., Suarez-Almazor M.E., Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments, Med Care, 41, pp. 791-801, (2003)

← 1 2 →