Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2019

Open Access 01-05-2019

Sensitivity of EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D to changes in speech reception and tinnitus associated with cochlear implantation

Authors: A. Q. Summerfield, G. R. Barton, the UK Cochlear Implant Study Group

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

There is concern that some generic preference-based measures (GPMs) of health-related quality of life may be insensitive to interventions that improve hearing. Establishing where sensitivity arises could contribute to the design of improved measures. Accordingly, we compared the sensitivity of four widely used GPMs to a clinically effective treatment—cochlear implantation—which restores material degrees of hearing to adults with little or no functional hearing.

Methods

Participants (N = 147) received implants in any of 13 hospitals in the UK. One month before implantation and 9 months after, they completed the HUI2, HUI3, EQ5D3L, and SF-6D questionnaires, together with the EuroQoL visual-analogue scale as a direct measure of health, a performance test of speech reception, and a self-report measure of annoyance due to tinnitus.

Results

Implantation was associated with a large improvement in speech reception and a small improvement in tinnitus. HUI2 and HUI3 were sensitive to the improvement in speech reception through their Sensation and Hearing dimensions; EQ5D3L was sensitive to the improvement in tinnitus through its Anxiety/Depression dimension; SF-6D was sensitive to neither. Participants reported no overall improvement in health. Variation in health was associated with variation in tinnitus, not variation in speech reception.

Conclusions

None of the four GPMs was sensitive to the improvements in both speech reception and tinnitus that were associated with cochlear implantation. To capture fully the benefits of interventions for auditory disorders, developments of current GPMs would need to be sensitive to both the health-related and non-health-related aspects of auditory dysfunction.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., Davis, A. C., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2004). Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3, 103–105.CrossRefPubMed
3.
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.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Grutters, J. P. C., Joore, M. A., van der Horst, F., Verschuure, H., Dreschler, W. A., & Anteunis, L. J. C. (2007). Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1439–1449.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Yang, Y., Longworth, L., & Brazier, J. (2013). An assessment of the validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2813–2828.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Davis, A. C. (1995). Hearing in adults. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
7.
8.
Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and evaluation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
10.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 16, 1:54.
11.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Torrance, G., Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 7, 702–722.CrossRef
14.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.
16.
Konerding, U., Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2009). The classification systems of the EQ-5D, the HUI II and the SF-6D: What do they have in common? Quality of Life Research, 18, 1249–1261.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. (2004). Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: Theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear and Hearing, 25, 310–335.CrossRef
19.
Bond, M., Mealing, S., Anderson, R., Elston, J., Weiner, G., Taylor, R. S., Hoyle, M., Liu, Z., Price, A., & Stein, K. (2009). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: A systematic review and economic model. Health Technology Assessment, 13, 1–330.PubMed
20.
Coles, R. R. A. (1997). Tinnitus. In A. G. Kerr (Ed.), Scott-brown otolaryngology. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
21.
Dauman, R. (2000). Electrical stimulation for tinnitus suppression. In R. Tyler (Ed.), Tinnitus handbook (pp. 377–398). San Diego: Singular.
22.
McFadden, D. (1982). Tinnitus: Facts, theories, and treatments. Report of Working Group 89, Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Biomechanics. Washington, DC.
23.
Tyler, R. S., & Kelsay, D. (1990). Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant users. American Journal of Otology 11.
24.
UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. (2004). Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear and Hearing, 25, 336–360.CrossRef
25.
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, 360–374.
26.
27.
Jenkinson, C., Layte, R., Wright, L., & Coulter, A. (1996). The UK SF-36: An analysis and interpretation manual. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford.
28.
29.
Bench, J., Kowal, A., & Bamford, J. (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British Journal of Audiology, 13, 108–112.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Sissons, C. (1996). Tinnitus questionnaire items for measures of severity, maskability, and intrusion/annoyance. Dissertation presented to the Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Nottingham.
31.
IBM Corporation. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk. New York: IBM Corp.
32.
Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, K. W., & Patrick, D. L. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16, 815–822.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Zeng, F. G. (2017). Challenges in improving cochlear implant performance and accessibility. IEEE Transactions in Biomedical Engineering, 64, 1662–1664.CrossRef
35.
Cruickshanks, K. J., Tweed, T. S., Wiley, T. L., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Chappell, R., Nondahl, D. M., & Dalton, D. S. (2003). The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss: The epidemiology of hearing loss study. Archives of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 129, 1041–1046.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Sach, T. H., & Barton, G. R. (2007). Interpreting parental proxy reports of (health-related) quality of life for children with unilateral cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 71, 435–445.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Nondahl, D. M., Cruickshanks, K. J., Dalton, D. S., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Schubert, C. R., Tweed, T. S., & Wiley, T. L. (2007). The impact of tinnitus on quality of life in older adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 257–266.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Folmer, R. L., Griest, S. E., & Martin, W. H. (2001). Chronic tinnitus as phantom auditory pain. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 124, 394–400.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Erlandsson, S. I., & Hallberg, L. R. (2000). Prediction of quality of life in patients with tinnitus. British Journal of Audiology, 34, 11–20.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Sullivan, M., Katon, W. J., Russo, J., Dobie, R., & Sakai, C. (1992). Somatization, co-morbidity, and the quality of life: Measuring the effect of depression upon chronic medical illness. Psychiatric Medicine, 10, 61–76.PubMed
42.
McCormack, A., Edmondson-Jones, M., Fortnum, H., Dawes, P. D., Middleton, H., Munro, K. J., & Moore, D. R. (2015). Investigating the association between tinnitus severity and symptoms of depression and anxiety, while controlling for neuroticism, in a large middle-aged UK population. International Journal of Audiology, 54, 599–604.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Maes, I. H. L., Joore, M. A., Cima, R. F. F., Vlayen, J. W., & Anteunis, J. C. (2011). Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: a comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI Mark III. Ear and Hearing, 32, 428–435.CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., & Longworth, L. (2015). An exploratory study to test the impact on three ‘bolt-on’ items to the EQ-5D. Value Health, 18, 52–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Finch, A. P., Brazier, J. E., & Mukuria, C. (2017). An exploratory study on using principal-component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify bolt-on dimensions: The EQ-5D case study. Value Health, 20, 1362–1375.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Sensitivity of EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D to changes in speech reception and tinnitus associated with cochlear implantation
Authors
A. Q. Summerfield
G. R. Barton
the UK Cochlear Implant Study Group
Publication date
01-05-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2070-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Quality of Life Research 5/2019 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties and factorial analysis of invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in cancer patients

OriginalPaper

Development of a person-centered conceptual model of perceived fatigability

OriginalPaper

Modeling strategies to improve parameter estimates in prognostic factors analyses with patient-reported outcomes in oncology

OriginalPaper

A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms

OriginalPaper

Trajectories of perceived social support in acute coronary syndrome

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life and related factors among elderly persons under different aged care models in Guangzhou, China: a cross-sectional study