Advertisement

Counselling of hearing aid users is highly cost-effective

  • Arja VuorialhoEmail author
  • Petri Karinen
  • Martti Sorri
Otology
First Online:

Abstract

Hearing aids (HAs) are often left unused. Several investigations have shown that the use of HAs and the skills to use them can be significantly improved through counselling. Follow-up counselling is often restricted by increased cost. The objective of the study was to assess the cost and the effect of follow-up counselling on HA use. In a prospective pre-post design study, 98 first-time HA users were counselled 6 months after the fitting of a HA, and the use of and benefit from HAs were measured by means of an interview and the short form of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly (HHIE-S) and the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The results obtained before and 6 months after counselling were compared and the cost of counselling was calculated. After follow-up counselling, over half of the occasional users of a HA and as many as one third of the non-users became regular users. The number of regular users increased by 16 subjects, and non-users decreased from 29 subjects to 17. The HHIE-S results showed a significant positive change, but the EQ-5D results showed practically no change. The additional expense of follow-up counselling at home was approximately 8.8% (€83 per visit) of the calculated €942 cost of fitting a HA. Bringing one unused HA into regular use required €508. The results show that HA use and the consequent benefit can be significantly increased through counselling. The expense caused by follow-up counselling at home is highly acceptable in addition to the cost of fitting a HA.

Keywords

Rehabilitation Hearing impairment Hearing aid fitting 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams H, Hnath-Chisolm T, Guerreiro S, Ritterman S (1992) The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. Ear Hear 13:371–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barton G, Bankart J, Davis A (2005) A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol 44:157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benyon G, Thornton F, Poole C (1997) A randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of a communication course for first time hearing aid users. Br J Audiol 31:345–351Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berlanger A, Berthelot J, Guimond E, Houle C (2000) A head-to-head comparison of two generic health status measures in the household population: McMaster Health Utilities Index (Mark 3) and the EQ-5D: Statistics Canada; Health analysis and modelling groupGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brickley G, Cleaver V, Bailey S (1996) An evaluation of a group follow-up scheme for new NHS hearing aid users. Br J Audiol 30:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks D (1979) Counselling and its effect on hearing aid use. Scand Audiol 8:101–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks D (1981) Use of post-aural aids by National Health Service patients. Br J Audiol 15:79–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks D (1985) Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol 19:211–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooks D, Hallam R (1998) Attitudes to hearing difficulty and hearing aids and the outcome of audiological rehabilitation, Br J Audiol 32:217–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chisolm T, Abrams H, McArdle R (2004) Short- and Long-term outcomes of adult audiological rehabilitation. Ear Hear 25:464–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DiSarno N (1997) Informing the older consumer—a model. Hear J 50:49–52Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond M (2001) The use of economic evidence by healthcare decision makers. HEPAC 2:2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddard G, Torrance G (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gianopoulos O, Dafydd S, Davis A (2002) Follow up of people fitted with hearing aids after adult hearing screening: the need for support after fitting. BMJ 325:471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Humes L, Wilson D, Barlow N, Garner C (2002) Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Hear Res 45:772–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joore M, Brunenberg D, Zank H, van der Stel H, Anteunis L, Boas Peters H (2002) Development of a questionnaire to measure hearing-related health state preferences framed in an overall health perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18:528–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joore M, Brunenberg D, Chenalt M, Anteunis L (2003a) Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol 42:152–160Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joore M, van der Stel H, Peters H, Boas G, Anteunis L (2003b) The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kapteyn T, Wijkel D, Hackenitz E (1997) The effects of involvement of the general practitioner and guidance of the hearing impaired on hearing-aid use. Br J Audiol 31:399–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A (1998) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316:736–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kochkin S (2002) 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. Hear J 45:39–44Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langley P (1995) Therapy evaluation, patient distribution, and cost-outcomes ratios. Clin Ther 17:341–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lichtenstein M, Bess F, Logan S (1988) Diagnostic performance of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly (screening version) against differing definitions of hearing loss. Ear Hear 9:208–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCandless G. Lyregaard P (1983) Prescription of gain and output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 34:16–21Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J, Walger M, von Wedel H (2002) Determining the importance of fundamental hearing aid attributes. Otol Neurotol 23:457–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mulrow C, Aguilar C, Endicott J, Tuley M, Velez R, Charlip W, Rhodes M, Hill J, DeNino L (1990) Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. Ann Intern Med 113:188–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mulrow C, Tuley M, Aguilar C (1992) Sustained benefits of hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 35:1402–1405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mäki-Torkko E, Sorri M, Laukli E (2001) Objective assessment of hearing aid use. Scand Audiol 52(suppl):81–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Northern J, Meadows-Beyer C (l999) Reducing hearing aid returns through patient education. Audiol Today 11:10–13Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oostenbrink R, Moll H, Essink-Bot M (2002) The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison. J Clin Epidemiol 55:791–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parving A, Philip B (1991) Use and benefit of hearing aids in the tenth decade—and beyond. Audiology 30:61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parving A (2003) The hearing aid revolution: fact or fiction? Acta Otolaryngol 123:245–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwartz D, Lyregaard P, Lundh P (1988) Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss. Hear J 41:13–17Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sorri M, Luotonen M, Laitakari K (1984) Use and non-use of hearing aids. Br J Audiol 18:169–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sorri M, Jounio-Ervasti K, Uimonen S, Huttunen K (2001) Will hearing healthcare be affordable in the new millennium. Scand Audiol 30:203–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    SPSS 11.5 for Windows/SPSS Tables 11.5, Copyright® 2003, SPSS IncGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Surr R, Schuchman G, Montgomery A (1978) Factors influencing use of hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:732–736Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taubman L, Palmer C, Durrant J, Pratt S (1999) Accuracy of hearing aid use time as reported by experienced hearing aid wearers. Ear Hear 20:299–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor K (1993) Self-perceived and audiometric evaluations of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear Hear 14:390–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M, Koopmanschap M, Bonsel G, Rutten F (1996) Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12:405–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ventry I, Weinstein B (1982) The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vuorialho A, Sorri M, Nuojua I (2004) Costs of hearing aid rehabilitation in two finnish hearing centres. Audiol Med 2:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vuorialho A, Sorri M, Nuojua I, Muhli A (2005) Changes in hearing aid use over the past twenty years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Nov 9 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Willan A, O’Brien B (1996) Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ 5:297–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity of OuluOulun YliopistoFinland
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of OuluOulun YliopistoFinland
  3. 3.KajaaniFinland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options