Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implant Use in Albania and Benefits from its Applications to Children with Profound Loss Hearing

MSc. Mirvete Rama, Dr.Sc. Anjeza Kaleci, Dr.Sc. Sonila Vito, MSc. Selvete Shuleta-Qehaja

Abstract


Background: It is estimated that each year in Albania, about 70 children are born with profound hearing loss. If detected and diagnosed early (before age 4-5) and treated with cochlear implant, these children are likely to recover from the loss of hearing in a certain extent and to gradually develop speech, thus integrate in life and society.

The purpose of this study is to compare these two alternatives by combining the costs and respective benefits or outcomes through a pharmacy economic evaluation. This assessment provides theoretical data on the problem of profound hearing loss mainly in children, long-term consequences of this condition in their life mainly in lingual development , cognitive (cognitive), emotional, and social benefits and highlights the impact of cochlear implant in the lives of these individuals.

Methodology: As for those individuals, whose quality of life is compromised by their defect, we used a cost-utility analysis. The assessment is done from the perspective of the payer and the society. After assessment of costs and calculation of QALYs for each alternative we concluded.

Conclusions: Cochlear implant improves hearing perception and helps the development of speech at young children with profound hearing loss under the age of 4-5.The younger the child is the greater are the benefits. Cochlear implant is more cost-effective from both perspectives considered by our study (Payer and Society) compared with no implant.


Keywords


Cochlear Implant; Deafness; Cost-Effectiveness; Life Quality; Lost Hearing;

References


Copeland BJ, Pillsbury HC, III. Cochlear implantation for the treatment of deafness. Annu Rev Med 2004;55:157–67.

Davis A, Bamford J, Ramkalawan T, Forshaw M, Wright S. A critical review of the role of neonatal screening in the detection of hearing impairment. Health Technol Assess 1997;1(10).

Fortnum HM, Marshall DH, Summerfield AQ. Epidemiology of the UK population of hearingimpaired children, including characteristics of those with and without cochlear implants – audiology, aetiology, comorbidity and affluence. Int J Audiol 2002;41:170–9.

Fortnum HM, Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Davis AC, Bamford JM. Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing impairment in the United Kingdom and implications for universal neonatal hearing screening: questionnaire-based ascertainment study [see comment]. Br Med J 2001;323:536–40.

Gilhome Herbst KR, Humphrey C. Hearing impairment and mental state in the elderly living at INSTAT, (2012), “Albania in Figures”, Albania.

Owens D, Espeso A, Hayes J, Williams RG. Cochlear implants: referral, selection and rehabilitation. Curr Paediatr 2006;16:360–5.

Royal National Institute for the Deaf. Information and resources for deaf and hard of hearing people, their families, friends and employers, and professionals. 2006.

Sallavaci S. E drejta e femijeve me aftesi te kufizuar per arsim gjithperfshires 2009

Sallavaci S. Shurdhesite tek femijet, trajtimi i tyre. 2007

Sangster JF, Gerace M, Seewald RC. Hearing loss in elderly patients in a family practice. Can Med Assoc J 1991;2144:981–4.

Sataloff J. Hearing loss. Philadelphia and Toronto: JB Lippincott; 1966.

Weinstein BE. Geriatric hearing loss: myths, realities, resources for physicians. Geriatrics 1989;44:42–8.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.21113/iir.v4i2.48

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2016 MSc. Mirvete Rama, Dr.Sc. Anjeza Kaleci, Dr.Sc. Sonila Vito, MSc. Selvete Shuleta-Qehaja

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
x
Message