STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka participated in the study.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Costs were obtained from experts in each country with known costs and published data, with estimation when necessary. A disability-adjusted life-years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost-effectiveness was determined with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio per gross domestic product (CER/GDP) per capita <3.
RESULTS: Deaf education was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 3.59). CI was cost-effective in all countries except Nepal (CER/GDP, 6.38) and Pakistan (CER/GDP, 3.14)-the latter of which reached borderline cost-effectiveness in the sensitivity analysis (minimum, maximum: 2.94, 3.39).
CONCLUSION: Deaf education and CI are largely cost-effective in participating Asian countries. Variation in CI maintenance and education-related costs may contribute to the range of cost-effectiveness ratios observed in this study.
DESIGN: Searches were performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool and Melnyk Levels of Evidence were used to assess quality and level of evidence of eligible studies. Behaviours of hearing healthcare professionals were summarised descriptively.
STUDY SAMPLE: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Twelve studies described behaviours of audiologists and five studies were intervention studies. Audiologists were typically task- or technically-oriented and/or dominated the interaction during hearing aid consultations. Two intervention studies suggested that use of motivational interviewing techniques by audiologists may increase hearing aid use in patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies of clinicians' behaviours were descriptive, with very little research linking clinician behaviour to patient outcomes. The present review sets the research agenda for better-controlled intervention studies to identify which clinician behaviours better promote patient hearing aid outcomes and develop an evidence base for best clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To review surgical and audiological outcomes of COM patients that underwent CI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients above 18 years old.
RESULTS: Ten patients with complete data were included. Patients were aged 24-69 years old. Tympanoplasty and mastoidectomy were performed before CI. Imaging was performed to rule out ossifications. Eight patients underwent a standard canal wall up with either cochleostomy or round window approach. One patient had additional canalplasty and tympanoplasty and another one had blind sac procedure respectively. Analysis of the hearing aided level with CI and hearing aid showed significant benefit provided by the CI (Z = 2.803, p = .005).
DISCUSSION: Creating a dry and safe ear is important prior to CI. Definite hearing improvement is seen in all our cases that helped them to become independent again in their daily life. Hearing aid usage pre-CI might not be important as the hearing aids may continue to cause discharging ears and the benefits of hearing aids in severe to profound hearing loss are very minimal.
CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implant is safe and effective in COM patients.