Cargando…

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dubno, Judy R., Majumder, Pranab, Bettger, Janet Prvu, Dolor, Rowena J., Eifert, Victoria, Francis, Howard W., Pieper, Carl F., Schulz, Kristine A., Silberberg, Mina, Smith, Sherri L., Walker, Amy R., Witsell, David L., Tucci, Debara L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9233354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35751122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00360-5
_version_ 1784735745167065088
author Dubno, Judy R.
Majumder, Pranab
Bettger, Janet Prvu
Dolor, Rowena J.
Eifert, Victoria
Francis, Howard W.
Pieper, Carl F.
Schulz, Kristine A.
Silberberg, Mina
Smith, Sherri L.
Walker, Amy R.
Witsell, David L.
Tucci, Debara L.
author_facet Dubno, Judy R.
Majumder, Pranab
Bettger, Janet Prvu
Dolor, Rowena J.
Eifert, Victoria
Francis, Howard W.
Pieper, Carl F.
Schulz, Kristine A.
Silberberg, Mina
Smith, Sherri L.
Walker, Amy R.
Witsell, David L.
Tucci, Debara L.
author_sort Dubno, Judy R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9233354
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92333542022-06-26 A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening Dubno, Judy R. Majumder, Pranab Bettger, Janet Prvu Dolor, Rowena J. Eifert, Victoria Francis, Howard W. Pieper, Carl F. Schulz, Kristine A. Silberberg, Mina Smith, Sherri L. Walker, Amy R. Witsell, David L. Tucci, Debara L. Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107). BioMed Central 2022-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9233354/ /pubmed/35751122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00360-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Dubno, Judy R.
Majumder, Pranab
Bettger, Janet Prvu
Dolor, Rowena J.
Eifert, Victoria
Francis, Howard W.
Pieper, Carl F.
Schulz, Kristine A.
Silberberg, Mina
Smith, Sherri L.
Walker, Amy R.
Witsell, David L.
Tucci, Debara L.
A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title_full A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title_fullStr A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title_full_unstemmed A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title_short A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
title_sort pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9233354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35751122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00360-5
work_keys_str_mv AT dubnojudyr apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT majumderpranab apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT bettgerjanetprvu apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT dolorrowenaj apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT eifertvictoria apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT francishowardw apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT piepercarlf apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT schulzkristinea apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT silberbergmina apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT smithsherril apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT walkeramyr apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT witselldavidl apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT tuccidebaral apragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT dubnojudyr pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT majumderpranab pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT bettgerjanetprvu pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT dolorrowenaj pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT eifertvictoria pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT francishowardw pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT piepercarlf pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT schulzkristinea pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT silberbergmina pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT smithsherril pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT walkeramyr pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT witselldavidl pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening
AT tuccidebaral pragmaticclinicaltrialofhearingscreeninginprimarycareclinicscosteffectivenessofhearingscreening