Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 103–105 | Cite as

Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision

Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D
  • Garry R. Barton
  • John Bankart
  • Adrian C. Davis
  • Quentin A. Summerfield


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.


  1. 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 2004; 3: 91–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 2002; 40: 113–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heyse J, Cook J, Carides G. Statistical considerations in analysing health care resource utilization and cost data. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 215–35Google Scholar
  4. 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 1999; 125: 1221–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krabbe P, Hinderink JB, van den Broek P. The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 864–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidature for unilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults. II: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 336–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joore MA, Van Der Stel H H, Peters HJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129: 297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 591–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41: 791–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, et al. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003; 12: 975–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004; 7: 602–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor RS, Paisley S, Davis AC. Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids. Br J Audiol 2001; 35: 271–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garry R. Barton
    • 1
  • John Bankart
    • 1
  • Adrian C. Davis
    • 1
  • Quentin A. Summerfield
    • 1
  1. 1.MRC Institute of Hearing ResearchUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations