Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review
| Autor: | Gloria X Zhang, Mohamed Mustafa Diab, Kamaria Kaalund, Osondu Ogbuoji, Ethan D. Borre, Gillian D Sanders, Blake S. Wilson, Susan D. Emmett, Debara L. Tucci, Austin Ayer |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Hearing aid
Medicine (General) medicine.medical_specialty Cost effectiveness Hearing loss medicine.medical_treatment Psychological intervention 01 natural sciences Decision modeling 03 medical and health sciences R5-920 0302 clinical medicine Health care medicine 030212 general & internal medicine 0101 mathematics business.industry 010102 general mathematics General Medicine Family medicine Scale (social sciences) Systematic review Cost-effectiveness medicine.symptom business Decision model Inclusion (education) Research Paper |
| Zdroj: | EClinicalMedicine EClinicalMedicine, Vol 35, Iss, Pp 100872-(2021) |
| ISSN: | 2589-5370 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100872 |
| Popis: | Background Hearing loss is a common and costly medical condition. This systematic review sought to identify evidence gaps in published model-based economic analyses addressing hearing loss to inform model development for an ongoing Lancet Commission. Methods We searched the published literature through 14 June 2020 and our inclusion criteria included decision model-based cost-effectiveness analyses that addressed diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of hearing loss. Two investigators screened articles for inclusion at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data were abstracted and the studies were assessed for the qualities of model structure, data assumptions, and reporting using a previously published quality scale. Findings Of 1437 articles identified by our search, 117 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these model-based analyses were set in high-income countries (n = 96, 82%). The evaluated interventions were hearing screening (n = 35, 30%), cochlear implantation (n = 34, 29%), hearing aid use (n = 28, 24%), vaccination (n = 22, 19%), and other interventions (n = 29, 25%); some studies included multiple interventions. Eighty-six studies reported the main outcome in quality-adjusted or disability-adjusted life-years, 24 of which derived their own utility values. The majority of the studies used decision tree (n = 72, 62%) or Markov (n = 41, 35%) models. Forty-one studies (35%) incorporated indirect economic effects. The median quality rating was 92/100 (IQR:72–100). Interpretation The review identified a large body of literature exploring the economic efficiency of hearing healthcare interventions. However, gaps in evidence remain in evaluation of hearing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in investigating interventions across the lifespan. Additionally, considerable uncertainty remains around productivity benefits of hearing healthcare interventions as well as utility values for hearing-assisted health states. Future economic evaluations could address these limitations. Funding NCATS 3UL1-TR002553-03S3 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|