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.


Change Score Utility Score Utility Measure Health Utility Index Estimate Cost Effectiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank clinicians and patients at the audiology clinics in Bath; Cambridge; Royal National Throat, Nose, and Ear Hospital (London); and Nottingham who provided data for this study. Costs of the study were met by a grant from the UK Department of Health (Modernising NHS Hearing Aid Services programme). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest that are relevant to the contents of this manuscript.


  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