Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare two preference-weighted, caregiver-reported measures of health-related quality of life for children with permanent childhood hearing loss to determine whether cost-effectiveness analysis applied to deaf and hard of hearing populations will provide similar answers based on the choice of instrument.

Methods

Caregivers of 103 children in Arkansas, USA, with documented hearing loss completed the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) to describe the health status of their children. Audiology and other clinical measures were abstracted from medical records. Mean scores were compared overall and by degree of hearing loss. Linear regression was used to correlate preference scores with a four-frequency pure-tone average, cochlear implant status, and other factors.

Results

Mean preference scores for the QWB and HUI3 were similar (0.601 and 0.619, respectively) although the HUI3 demonstrated a wider range of values (−0.132 to 1.000) compared to the QWB (0.345–0.854) and was more sensitive to mild hearing loss. Both measures correlated with the pure-tone average, were negatively associated with comorbid conditions and positively associated with cochlear implant status. In the best fitting regression models, similar estimates for cochlear implant status and comorbid conditions were obtained from the two measures.

Conclusions

Despite considerable differences in the HUI3 and the QWB scale, we found agreement between the two instruments at the mean, but clinically important differences across a number of measures. The two instruments are likely to yield different estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, especially for interventions involving mild to moderate hearing loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dalton, D. S., Cruickshanks, K. J., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Wiley, T. L., & Nondahl, D. M. (2003). The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist, 43, 661–668.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pugh, K. C. (2004). Health status attributes of older African-American adults with hearing loss. Journal of the National Medical Association, 96, 772–779.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wake, M., Hughes, E. K., Collins, C. M., & Poulakis, Z. (2004). Parent-reported health-related quality of life in children with congenital hearing loss: A population study. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 4, 411–417. doi:10.1367/A03-191R.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stacey, P. C., Fortnum, H. M., Barton, G. R., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: Auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 27, 161–186. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000202353.37567.b4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng, A. K., Rubin, H. R., Powe, N. R., Mellon, N. K., Francis, H. W., & Niparko, J. K. (2000). Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 850–856. doi:10.1001/jama.284.7.850.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Huber, M. (2005). Health-related quality of life of Austrian children and adolescents with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 69, 1089–1101. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.02.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moeller, M. P., Hoover, B., Putman, C., Arbataitis, K., Bohnenkamp, G., Peterson, B., Lewis, D., Estee, S., Pittman, A., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2007). Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing. Part II. Transition to words. Ear and Hearing, 28, 628–642. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812564c9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moeller, M. P., Hoover, B., Putman, C., Arbataitis, K., Bohnenkamp, G., Peterson, B., Wood, S., Lewis, D., Pittman, A., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2007). Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing. Part I. Phonetic development. Ear and Hearing, 28, 605–627. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812564ab.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Puig, T., Municio, A., & Meda, C. (2005). Universal neonatal hearing screening versus selective screening as part of the management of childhood deafness. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, CD003731.

  10. Bess, F. H., & Paradise, J. L. (1994). Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: Not simple, not risk-free, not necessarily beneficial, and not presently justified. Pediatrics, 93, 330–334.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Thompson, D. C., McPhillips, H., Davis, R. L., Lieu, T. L., Homer, C. J., & Helfand, M. (2001). Universal newborn hearing screening: Summary of evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2000–2010. doi:10.1001/jama.286.16.2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., Petrou, S., Watkin, P., Worsfold, S., Yuen, H. M., & Stevenson, J. (2006). Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2131–2141. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa054915.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schroeder, L., Petrou, S., Kennedy, C., McCann, D., Law, C., Watkin, P. M., Worsfold, S., & Yuen, H. M. (2006). The economic costs of congenital bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics, 117, 1101–1112. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1999). Benefits of early intervention for children with hearing loss. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 32, 1089–1102. doi:10.1016/S0030-6665(05)70196-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Downs, M. P., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1999). The efficacy of early identification and intervention for children with hearing impairment. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 46, 79–87. doi:10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70082-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gold, M. R., Patrick, D. L., Hadorn, D. C., Kamlet, M. S., Torrance, G. W., Fryback, D. G., Daniels, N., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Identifying and valuing outcomes. In M. R. Gold, J. E. Siegel, L. B. Russell, & M. C. Weinstein (Eds.), Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (pp. 82–134). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. (2004). Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults III: Prospective evaluation of an actuarial approach to defining a criterion. Ear and Hearing, 25, 361–374. doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000134551.13162.88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bichey, B. G., Hoversland, J. M., Wynne, M. K., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2002). Changes in quality of life and the cost-utility associated with cochlear implantation in patients with large vestibular aqueduct syndrome. Otology and Neurotology, 23, 323–327. doi:10.1097/00129492-200205000-00016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. H., Barton, G. R., & Bloor, K. E. (2002). A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 128, 1255–1262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Palmer, C. S., Niparko, J. K., Wyatt, J. R., Rothman, M., & de Lissovoy, G. (1999). A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 125, 1221–1228.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheng, A. K., & Niparko, J. K. (1999). Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: A meta-analysis. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 125, 1214–1218.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wyatt, J. R., Niparko, J. K., Rothman, M., & deLissovoy, G. (1996). Cost utility of the multichannel cochlear implants in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope, 106, 816–821. doi:10.1097/00005537-199607000-00006.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wyatt, J. R., Niparko, J. K., Rothman, M. L., & DeLissovoy, G. V. (1995). Cost-effectiveness of the multichannel cochlear implant. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology Supplement, 166, 248–250.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, H. Y., Park, E. C., Kim, H. J., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, H. N. (2006). Cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants in Korea using different measures of utility. Acta Otolaryngologica, 126, 817–823. doi:10.1080/00016480500525213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barton, G. R., Stacey, P. C., Fortnum, H. M., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). Hearing-Impaired children in the United Kingdom. IV. Cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 27, 575–588. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000233967.11072.24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Brien, B. J., Spath, M., Blackhouse, G., Severens, J. L., Dorian, P., & Brazier, J. (2003). A view from the bridge: Agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Economics, 12, 975–981. doi:10.1002/hec.789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884. doi:10.1002/hec.866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hatoum, H. T., Brazier, J. E., & Akhras, K. S. (2004). Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health, 7, 602–609. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75011.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania K, Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., Esdaile, J. M., & Anis, A. H. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1571–1582. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., Chalmers, A., Anis, A. H. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42, 1125–1131. doi:10.1097/00005650-200411000-00012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., & Davis, A. C. (2005). A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 157–163. doi:10.1080/14992020500057566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., Davis, A. C., & Summerfield, Q. A. (2004). Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3, 103–105. doi:10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1996). The general health policy model: An integrated approach. In B. Spiker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmeaeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 309–322). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1988). A general health policy model: Update and Applications. Health Services Research, 23, 203–235.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Econonmics, 21, 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pyne, J. M., Sullivan, G., Kaplan, R., & Williams, D. K. (2003). Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia. Medical Care, 41, 208–217. doi:10.1097/00005650-200302000-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Marra, C. A., Marion, S. A., Guh, D. P., Najafzadeh, M., Wolfe, F., Esdaile, J. M., Clarke, A. E., Gignac, M. A., & Anis, A. H. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 616–624. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.006.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Parsons, S. K., Barlow, S. E., Levy, S. L., Supran, S. E., & Kaplan, S. H. (1999). Health-related quality of life in pediatric bone marrow transplant survivors: According to whom? International Journal of Cancer. Supplement, 12, 46–51. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(1999)83:12±≤46::AID-IJC9≥3.0.CO;2-C.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported under a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Association of American Medical Colleges (MM-0636-04). Jeff Killingsworth, Nancy Mitcham, Sandra Gartman, and Tammy Binz provided excellent research assistance. We thank the following individuals for helpful comments on various versions of the manuscript: Danielle Ross and T.M. Bird.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Health Related Professions, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USA

    Laura Smith-Olinde

  2. Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Professional Studies, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, UP 600, 2801 S. University, Little Rock, AR, 72204, USA

    Laura Smith-Olinde

  3. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA

    Scott D. Grosse

  4. Audiology/Speech Pathology Service (126/NLR), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, 2200 Fort Roots Dr, North Little Rock, AR, 72214-1706, USA

    Frank Olinde

  5. Audiology and Speech Pathology Clinic, Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, AR, 72202, USA

    Patti F. Martin

  6. Department of Pediatrics, Center for Applied Research and Evaluation, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, AR, 72202, USA

    John M. Tilford

Authors
  1. Laura Smith-Olinde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott D. Grosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Olinde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patti F. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John M. Tilford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Smith-Olinde.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith-Olinde, L., Grosse, S.D., Olinde, F. et al. Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3. Qual Life Res 17, 943–953 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9358-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9358-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation