Litcius/Paper detail

Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review

Ethan D. Borre, Mohamed Mustafa Diab, Austin Ayer, Gloria Zhang, Susan D. Emmett, Debara L. Tucci, Blake S. Wilson, Kamaria Kaalund, Osondu Ogbuoji, Gillian D Sanders

2021EClinicalMedicine14 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

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: = 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.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineHealth careSystematic reviewMEDLINEEconomic growthLawEconomicsPolitical scienceHearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Impairment and Communication
Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review | Litcius