29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The global burden of disabling hearing impairment: a call to action Translated title: ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????, ?????????? ? ????????????: ?????? ? ???????? Translated title: Le fardeau mondial de la déficience auditive invalidante: un appel à l'action Translated title: ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????: ???? ????? Translated title: ????????????????? Translated title: La carga global de la deficiencia auditiva incapacitante: una llamada a la acción

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          At any age, disabling hearing impairment has a profound impact on interpersonal communication, psychosocial well-being, quality of life and economic independence. According to the World Health Organization’s estimates, the number of people with such impairment increased from 42 million in 1985 to about 360 million in 2011. This last figure includes 7.5 million children less than 5 years of age. In 1995, a “roadmap” for curtailing the burden posed by disabling hearing impairment was outlined in a resolution of the World Health Assembly. While the underlying principle of this roadmap remains valid and relevant, some updating is required to reflect the prevailing epidemiologic transition. We examine the traditional concept and grades of disabling hearing impairment – within the context of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – as well as the modifications to grading that have recently been proposed by a panel of international experts. The opportunity offered by the emerging global and high-level interest in promoting disability-inclusive post-2015 development goals and disability-free child survival is also discussed. Since the costs of rehabilitative services are so high as to be prohibitive in low- and middle-income countries, the critical role of primary prevention is emphasized. If the goals outlined in the World Health Assembly’s 1995 resolution on the prevention of hearing impairment are to be reached by Member States, several effective country-level initiatives – including the development of public–private partnerships, strong leadership and measurable time-bound targets – will have to be implemented without further delay.

          Translated abstract

          Résumé À tout âge, la déficience auditive invalidante affecte profondément la communication entre les personnes, le bien-être psychosocial, la qualité de vie et l'indépendance économique. Selon les estimations de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé, le nombre de personnes souffrant d’une telle déficience a augmenté de 42 millions en 1985 à 360 millions en 2011. Ce dernier chiffre comprend 7,5 millions d'enfants âgés de moins de 5 ans. En 1995, une «feuille de route» pour réduire le fardeau de la déficience auditive invalidante a été énoncée dans une résolution de l'Assemblée mondiale de la santé. Bien que le principe sous-jacent de cette feuille de route reste valide et pertinent, une mise à jour s'avère nécessaire afin de refléter la transition épidémiologique prédominante. Nous examinons le concept traditionnel et les classes de déficience auditive invalidante – dans le cadre de la Classification internationale du fonctionnement, du handicap et de la santé – ainsi que les modifications à apporter au classement, qui ont été récemment proposées par un panel d'experts internationaux. Nous discutons également de l'opportunité offerte par l'intérêt mondial naissant et à un très haut niveau pour la promotion des objectifs de développement pour l'après-2015, qui tiennent compte de la question du handicap et de la survie des enfants sans handicap. Comme les coûts des services de réadaptation sont élevés au point d'être prohibitifs dans les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire, nous insistons sur le rôle critique de la prévention primaire. Si les objectifs énoncés dans la résolution de 1995 de l'Assemblée mondiale de la santé sur la prévention de la déficience auditive doivent être réalisés par les États membres, plusieurs initiatives efficaces prises au niveau de chaque pays – y compris le développement de partenariats public-privé, un leadership fort et des objectifs mesurables à atteindre dans des délais déterminés – devront être mises en œuvre sans plus attendre.

          Translated abstract

          Resumen La deficiencia auditiva incapacitante tiene un impacto enorme en la comunicación interpersonal, el bienestar psicosocial, la calidad de vida y la independencia económica a cualquier edad. De acuerdo con los cálculos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el número de personas con dicha discapacidad aumentó de 42 millones en 1985 a unos 360 millones en 2011. Esta última cifra incluye 7,5 millones de niños con una edad inferior a los 5 años. En 1995 se preparó en una resolución de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud el borrador de una «hoja de ruta» para reducir la carga que supone la deficiencia auditiva incapacitante. Aunque el principio subyacente de esta hoja de ruta sigue siendo válido y pertinente, es necesario actualizarla para reflejar la transición epidemiológica prevaleciente. Examinamos el concepto y los niveles tradicionales de deficiencia auditiva incapacitante – dentro del contexto de la Clasificación Internacional del Funcionamiento, de la Discapacidad y de la Salud - así como las modificaciones en la clasificación recientemente propuestas por un grupo de expertos internacionales. También se discute la oportunidad que ofrece el interés creciente a nivel mundial en la promoción de la discapacidad, incluidos los objetivos de desarrollo tras 2015 y la supervivencia de los niños sin discapacidad. Dado que los costes de los servicios de rehabilitación son tan elevados que resultan prohibitivos en los países con ingresos bajos y medios, se hace hincapié en el papel fundamental de la prevención primaria. Si los Estados Miembros deben alcanzar los objetivos planteados en la resolución de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud de 1995 acerca de la prevención de la discapacidad auditiva, es necesario que se pongan en marcha, sin más demora, una serie de iniciativas nacionales eficaces, entre las que se encontrarían el desarrollo de asociaciones público-privadas, un liderazgo sólido y metas con plazos concretos y mensurables.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          International classification of functioning, disability & health

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            International Classification of Functioning, Disabilities and Health

            (2001)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model.

              To investigate whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to provide (i) a unilateral cochlear implant for severely to profoundly deaf people (using or not using hearing aids), and (ii) a bilateral cochlear implant for severely to profoundly deaf people with a single cochlear implant (unilateral or unilateral plus hearing aid). Main electronic databases [MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL; NHS EED; DARE; HTA (NHS-CRD); EconLit; National Research Register; and ClinicalTrials.gov] searched in October 2006, updated July 2007. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken according to standard methods. A state-transition (Markov) model of the main care pathways deaf people might follow and the main complications and device failures was developed. The clinical effectiveness review included 33 papers, of which only two were RCTs. They used 62 different outcome measures and overall were of moderate to poor quality. All studies in children comparing one cochlear implant with non-technological support or an acoustic hearing aid reported gains on all outcome measures, some demonstrating greater gain from earlier implantation. The strongest evidence for an advantage from bilateral over unilateral implantation was for understanding speech in noisy conditions (mean improvement 13.2%, p < 0.0001); those receiving their second implant earlier made greater gains. Comparison of bilateral with unilateral cochlear implants plus an acoustic hearing aid was compromised by small sample sizes and poor reporting, but benefits were seen with bilateral implants. Cochlear implants improved children's quality of life, and those who were implanted before attending school were more likely to do well academically and attend mainstream education than those implanted later. In adults, there was a greater benefit from cochlear implants than from non-technological support in terms of speech perception. Increased age at implantation may reduce effectiveness and there is a negative correlation between duration of deafness and effectiveness. Speech perception measures all showed benefits for cochlear implants over acoustic hearing aids [e.g. mean increase in score of 37 points in noisy conditions (p < 0.001) with BKB sentences]; however, prelingually deafened adults benefited less than those postlingually deafened (mean change scores 20% versus 62%). For unilateral versus bilateral implantation, benefits in speech perception were significant in noisy conditions on all measures [e.g. 76% for HINT sentences (p < 0.0001)]. Quality of life measured with generic and disease-specific instruments or by interview mostly showed significant gains or positive trends from using cochlear implants. The Markov model base-case analysis estimated that, for prelingually profoundly deaf children, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for unilateral implantation compared with no implantation was 13,413 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming the utility gain for bilateral implantation is the same for adults and children, the ICERs for simultaneous and sequential bilateral implantation versus unilateral implantation were 40,410 pounds and 54,098 pounds per QALY respectively. For postlingually sensorineurally profoundly deaf adults, the corresponding ICERs were 14,163 pounds, 49,559 pounds and 60,301 pounds per QALY respectively. Probabilistic threshold analyses suggest that unilateral implants are highly likely to be cost-effective for adults and children at willingness to pay thresholds of 20,000 pounds or 30,000 pounds per QALY. There are likely to be overall additional benefits from bilateral implantation, enabling children and adults to hold conversations more easily in social situations. Unilateral cochlear implantation is safe and effective for adults and children and likely to be cost-effective in profoundly deaf adults and profoundly and prelingually deaf children. However, decisions on the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants should take into account the high degree of uncertainty within the model regarding the probable utility gain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                bwho
                Bulletin of the World Health Organization
                Bull World Health Organ
                World Health Organization (Genebra )
                0042-9686
                May 2014
                : 92
                : 5
                : 367-373
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre for Healthy Start Initiative Nigeria
                [2 ] St Elisabeth Hospital Germany
                [3 ] Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center USA
                Article
                S0042-96862014000500367
                10.2471/BLT.13.128728
                4007124
                24839326
                18417cde-4f63-4bda-9816-05606422687b

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Public Health

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0042-9686&lng=en
                Categories
                Health Policy & Services

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article