A cost-utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: are the benefits worth the cost?

J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002 Sep-Oct;39(5):549-58.


The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing two treatment approaches: (1) hearing aid use alone (HA) and (2) hearing aid use with short-term group postfitting audiologic rehabilitation (HA + AR). A total of 105 veterans, 67 males and 38 females, with at least a mild sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. The SF-36V was administered to each participant before and after treatment. This instrument measures both mental component summary (MCS) scales and physical component summary (PCS) scales of quality of life. As a whole, the participants exhibited a statistically significant improvement in mean MCS scores pre- to postintervention, with average improvements of 1.4 and 3.0 points for the HA and HA + AR groups, respectively. With the use of the MCS scores, the results of a cost-utility analysis revealed that HA treatment cost $60.00 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, while HA + AR cost only $31.91 per QALY gained, making HA + AR the more cost-effective treatment.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Combined Modality Therapy
  • Costs and Cost Analysis
  • Female
  • Hearing Aids / economics*
  • Hearing Loss / economics*
  • Hearing Loss / rehabilitation*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Rehabilitation / economics