An economic evaluation of screening 60- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss
An economic evaluation of screening 60- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss
BACKGROUND:Hearing loss is common among older adults and has consequences for sufferers, families and society, but there is substantial unmet need for intervention. Screening could expedite intervention and improve outcomes.
METHODS:We use Markov models to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of potential screening programmes compared with current provision (GP-referral), from a health service perspective. Alternative options are investigated through scenario analysis. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are undertaken.
RESULTS:All modelled screens are cost-effective and reduce unmet need for hearing aids. The most cost-effective option identified is a one-stage audiometric screen for bilateral hearing loss ?30 dB hearing level (HL) at age 60, repeated at ages 65 and 70. This option has an ICER of £1461 compared to GP-referral and would mean an additional 15 437 adults benefiting from hearing intervention per 100 000 population aged 60. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that screening is more cost-effective than GP-referral provided a Quality Adjusted Life Year is valued at £2000 or more.
CONCLUSIONS:Adult hearing screening would provide a cost-effective way to improve quality of life for older adults. We recommend piloting an audiometric screen offered to all adults age 60, 65 and 70 years to identify bilateral hearing loss of at least 30 dB HL.
139-146
Morris, Anna
69230276-48c9-4395-a9c6-725d8054df92
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Turner, David
39dc4dc8-88b4-4950-8bbd-c647ff110ec9
1 March 2013
Morris, Anna
69230276-48c9-4395-a9c6-725d8054df92
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Turner, David
39dc4dc8-88b4-4950-8bbd-c647ff110ec9
Morris, Anna, Lutman, Mark, Cook, Andrew and Turner, David
(2013)
An economic evaluation of screening 60- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss.
Journal of Public Health, 35 (1), .
(doi:10.1093/pubmed/fds058).
(PMID:23027734)
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Hearing loss is common among older adults and has consequences for sufferers, families and society, but there is substantial unmet need for intervention. Screening could expedite intervention and improve outcomes.
METHODS:We use Markov models to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of potential screening programmes compared with current provision (GP-referral), from a health service perspective. Alternative options are investigated through scenario analysis. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are undertaken.
RESULTS:All modelled screens are cost-effective and reduce unmet need for hearing aids. The most cost-effective option identified is a one-stage audiometric screen for bilateral hearing loss ?30 dB hearing level (HL) at age 60, repeated at ages 65 and 70. This option has an ICER of £1461 compared to GP-referral and would mean an additional 15 437 adults benefiting from hearing intervention per 100 000 population aged 60. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that screening is more cost-effective than GP-referral provided a Quality Adjusted Life Year is valued at £2000 or more.
CONCLUSIONS:Adult hearing screening would provide a cost-effective way to improve quality of life for older adults. We recommend piloting an audiometric screen offered to all adults age 60, 65 and 70 years to identify bilateral hearing loss of at least 30 dB HL.
Text
Journal of public health (Oxford England) 2013 Morris.pdf
- Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 30 September 2012
Published date: 1 March 2013
Organisations:
Faculty of Medicine
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 368561
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/368561
ISSN: 1741-3842
PURE UUID: d01bce8f-e076-4047-85ea-00c1eb5b2b2b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 06 Sep 2014 15:08
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:25
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Anna Morris
Author:
Mark Lutman
Author:
David Turner
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics