IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v6y2022i1d10.1007_s41669-021-00273-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Utility of Economic Measures to Quantify the Burden of Tinnitus in Affected Individuals: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Elza Daoud

    (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille University)

  • Charlotte Caimino

    (University of Nottingham
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre)

  • Michael A. Akeroyd

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Arnaud J. Noreña

    (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille University)

  • David M. Baguley

    (University of Nottingham
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre
    Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust)

Abstract

Background and objectives Tinnitus is a chronic subjective condition that impacts patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and requires multidisciplinary interventions. In health economics, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and willingness to pay (WTP) are essential for evaluating treatment effectiveness in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis. The extent to which these economic measures have been used in tinnitus research has not been investigated. The objectives of this scoping review were to explore findings and limitations of existing studies and provide an insight into how these economic measures could be used to quantify the burden of tinnitus in affected individuals. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodological framework. The search strategy involved four electronic databases. Records were included when QALYs or WTP were measured in individuals whose primary or secondary complaint was tinnitus. Results A total of 15 studies were identified: three WTP assessment studies and 12 QALY assessment studies using direct preference-based measures (PBMs) (n = 4), indirect PBMs (n = 7), and a disease-specific psychometric instrument (n = 1). The limited use to date of PBMs to assess HRQoL in tinnitus patients is an important finding. Conclusions Further studies using reliable economic methods and focusing on patients’ WTP for treatment or their preference for their current health state are needed. Applying PBMs in tinnitus research is crucial not only for the healthcare decision-making process but also to improve patient-centred care.

Suggested Citation

  • Elza Daoud & Charlotte Caimino & Michael A. Akeroyd & Arnaud J. Noreña & David M. Baguley, 2022. "The Utility of Economic Measures to Quantify the Burden of Tinnitus in Affected Individuals: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 21-32, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00273-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00273-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00273-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-021-00273-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Harrison, James D. & Young, Jane M. & Butow, Phyllis & Salkeld, Glenn & Solomon, Michael J., 2005. "Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1385-1396, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    2. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    3. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    4. Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo & McGrath, Clare & Herings, Ron, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 18-24, April.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    7. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    8. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    9. Nadja Chernyak & Heribert Sattel & Marsel Scheer & Christina Baechle & Johannes Kruse & Peter Henningsen & Andrea Icks, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Brief Psychodynamic Interpersonal Therapy in Patients with Multisomatoform Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, January.
    10. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    11. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    13. Ângela J. Ben & Jeruza L. Neyeloff & Camila F. Souza & Ana Paula O. Rosses & Aline L. Araujo & Adriana Szortika & Franciele Locatelli & Gabriela Carvalho & Cristina R. Neumann, 2020. "Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-68, February.
    14. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    15. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    16. Wei Zhang & Huiying Sun & Simon Woodcock & Aslam H. Anis, 2017. "Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    18. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    19. Lairson, David R. & Chung, Tong Han & Smith, Lisa G. & Springston, Jeffrey K. & Champion, Victoria L., 2015. "Estimating development cost of an interactive website based cancer screening promotion program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 56-62.
    20. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00273-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.