50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An economic evaluation of the healthcare cost of tinnitus management in the UK

      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

          Background

          There is no standard treatment pathway for tinnitus patients in the UK. Possible therapies include education and reassurance, cognitive behavioural therapies, modified tinnitus retraining therapy (education and sound enrichment), or amplification of external sound using hearing aids. However, the effectiveness of most therapies is somewhat controversial. As health services come under economic pressure to deploy resources more effectively there is an increasing need to demonstrate the value of tinnitus therapies, and how value may be continuously enhanced. The objective of this project was to map out existing clinical practice, estimate the NHS costs associated with the management approaches used, and obtain initial indicative estimates of cost-effectiveness.

          Methods

          Current treatment pathways, costs and health outcomes were determined from the tinnitus literature, national statistics, a patient survey, and expert opinion. These were used to create an Excel-based economic model of therapy options for tinnitus patients. The probabilities associated with the likelihood of an individual patient receiving a particular combination of therapies was used to calculate the average cost of treatment per patient, average health outcome per patient measured in QALYs gained, and cost-effectiveness, measured by the average cost per QALY gained.

          Results

          The average cost of tinnitus treatment per patient per year is GB£717, equating to an NHS healthcare bill of GB£750 million per year. Across all pathways, tinnitus therapy costs £10,600 per QALY gained. Results were relatively insensitive to restrictions on access to cognitive behaviour therapy, and a subsequent reliance on other therapies.

          Conclusions

          NHS provisions for tinnitus are cost-effective against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effective threshold. Most interventions help, but education alone offers very small QALY gains. The most cost-effective therapies in the model were delivered within audiology.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2527-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

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

          Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.

          The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a generic multiattribute preference-based measure of health status and health-related quality of life that is widely used as an outcome measure in clinical studies, in population health surveys, in the estimation of quality-adjusted life years, and in economic evaluations. HUI3 consists of eight attributes (or dimensions) of health status: vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain with 5 or 6 levels per attribute, varying from highly impaired to normal. The objectives are to present a multiattribute utility function and eight single-attribute utility functions for the HUI3 system based on community preferences. Two preference surveys were conducted. One, the modeling survey, collected preference scores for the estimation of the utility functions. The other, the direct survey, provided independent scores to assess the predictive validity of the utility functions. Preference measures included value scores obtained on the Feeling Thermometer and standard gamble utility scores obtained using the Chance Board. A random sample of the general population (> or =16 years of age) in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Estimates were obtained for eight single-attribute utility functions and an overall multiattribute utility function. The intraclass correlation coefficient between directly measured utility scores and scores generated by the multiattribute function for 73 health states was 0.88. The HUI3 scoring function has strong theoretical and empirical foundations. It performs well in predicting directly measured scores. The HUI3 system provides a practical way to obtain utility scores based on community preferences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical practice guideline: tinnitus.

            Tinnitus is the perception of sound without an external source. More than 50 million people in the United States have reported experiencing tinnitus, resulting in an estimated prevalence of 10% to 15% in adults. Despite the high prevalence of tinnitus and its potential significant effect on quality of life, there are no evidence-based, multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines to assist clinicians with management. The focus of this guideline is on tinnitus that is both bothersome and persistent (lasting 6 months or longer), which often negatively affects the patient's quality of life. The target audience for the guideline is any clinician, including nonphysicians, involved in managing patients with tinnitus. The target patient population is limited to adults (18 years and older) with primary tinnitus that is persistent and bothersome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

              Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                david@tinnitus.org.uk
                donmcferran@aol.com
                peter.brazier@optimityadvisors.com
                clive@wickenstones.com
                TONY.KAY@aintree.nhs.uk
                cfd@liv.ac.uk
                derek.hoare@nottingham.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                22 August 2017
                22 August 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 577
                Affiliations
                [1 ]British Tinnitus Association, Ground Floor, Unit 5, Acorn Business Park, Woodseats Close, Sheffield, S8 0TB UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0033 9432, GRID grid.440490.d, , Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, ; Lexden Rd, Colchester Essex, CO3 3NB UK
                [3 ]Optimity Advisors, 1st Floor Kemp House, 152-160 City Rd, London, EC1V 2DW UK
                [4 ]Wickenstones Ltd, Unit 26, 127 Olympic Avenue, Milton Park, OX14 4SA UK
                [5 ]GRID grid.411255.6, , Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, ; Lower Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, GRID grid.10025.36, Department of Psychological Sciences, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, L69 3GL UK
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8868, GRID grid.4563.4, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Otology and Hearing Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, , University of Nottingham, ; Nottingham, NG1 5DU UK
                Article
                2527
                10.1186/s12913-017-2527-2
                5567641
                28830503
                33152b1d-fcb1-47e5-a882-bbda77911d39
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 7 April 2016
                : 9 August 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: British Tinnitus Association
                Award ID: NA
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Health & Social care
                tinnitus,hearing aids,cost effectiveness,ear nose and throat,general practice,audiology,clinical psychology,cognitive behaviour therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article