Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

  • 제37권4호
  • /
  • Pages.353-358
  • /
  • 2004
  • /
  • 1975-8375(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-4521(eISSN)
대한예방의학회 (The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine)
권호 표지

인공와우 이식의 비용효용 분석

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant

  • 이후연 (연세대 보건대학원, 연세대 보건정책 및 관리연구소) ;
  • 김희남 (연세의대 이비인후과학교실) ;
  • 김한중 (연세대 보건대학원, 연세대 보건정책 및 관리연구소, 연세의대 예방의학교실) ;
  • 최재영 (연세의대 이비인후과학 교실) ;
  • 박은철 (국립암센터)
  • Lee, Hoo-Yeon (Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Health Services Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Nam (Department of otolaryngology, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Han-Joong (Graduate School of Public Health, Institute for Health Services Research, Yonsei University, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Jae-Young (Department of otolaryngology, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Eun-Cheol (National Cancer Center)
  • 발행 : 2004.12.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : To determine the quality of life and cost consequences for deaf adults who received a cochlear implant. Methods : The data from 11 patients, post-lingual deaf adults who received cochlear implants from 1990 to 2002, underwent cost-utility analysis. The average age of the participants was 49.6 years. The main outcomes were direct cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using the visual analog scale (VAS), health utility index (HUI), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and quality well-being (QWB), with costs and utilities being discounted 3% annually. Results : Recipients had an average of 5.6 years of implant use. Mean VAS scores increased by 0.33, from 0.27 before implantation to 0.60 at survey. HUI scores increased by 0.36, from 0.29 to 0.65, EQ-5D scores increased by 0.26, from 0.52 to 0.78, and QWB scores increased by 0.16, from 0.45 to 0.61. Discounted direct costs were $22,320, yielding $19,223/QALY using VAS, $17,387/QALY using HUI, $24,604/QALY using EQ-5D, and $40,474/QALY using QWB. Cost-utility ratios using VAS, HUI, and EQ-5D were all below $25,000 per QALY, except using QWB. Conclusion : Cochlear implants in post-lingual deaf adult have a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable direct costs and appear to produce a net saving to society.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. www.nidcd.nih .gov/health/healthhearing/tools/pdf/cochleariimplant.pdf
  2. 대한이비인후과학회. 이비인후과학/두경부외과학I.일조각,2002
  3. Niparko J. Cochlear implants. in: Cummings F, Harker, Krause, Richardson, Schouuller, ed. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 3rd ed., 1998
  4. Samuel FE. Technology and costs: Complrelationship. Hospital 1988; 62-72
  5. Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman ML, Lissovoy G. Cost effectiveness of the multichannel cochealer implant. Am J Otol 1995; 16(1): 52-62
  6. Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman ML. Cost utility of the meltichannel cochlear implant in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 816-821 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199607000-00006
  7. Summerfield AQ, Marchall DH, Bartom GR. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear impantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128 : 1255-1262 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.128.11.1255
  8. Cheng Ak, Rubine HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284: 850-856 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.7.850
  9. Cheng AK, Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlearrplant implant in adult: a meta analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surh 1999; 125: 1214-1218 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.125.11.1214
  10. Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt R, Rothman M, Lissovoy G. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch OtolaryngoI Head Neck Surg 1999; 125: 1221-1228 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.125.11.1221
  11. Robinson K. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 105: 415-422
  12. Harris JP, Anderson JP , Novak R. An outcomes study of cochlear implant in deaf patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 121:398-404 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1995.01890040024004
  13. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Cochlear implants in Adult and Children Cochlear implants in adults and children. JAMA 1995; 274: 1955-1961
  14. Hinderink JB, Krabbee FM, Broek PVD. Development and application of a health -related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear irrplant: The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123: 756-765
  15. Cha CE, Khang YH, Lee MS, WC Kang, SH Jeon, KL Kim, SI Lee. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hyperlipidemia mass screening program in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 2002; 35:(2):99-106
  16. Macran S, Weatherly H. Kind P. Measuring population health : A comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care 2003; 41(2): 218-231 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200302000-00004
  17. Stiggelboun A. Eijkemans M, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, De Haes H. The 'utility' of the visual anaog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 291-298 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300009648
  18. Torrance GW, Feeny GH, Furlong WJ. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system Health Utility Index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702-722 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004
  19. Riley AW, Forrest CB, Starfield B, Green B, Kang M, Ensminger M. Reliaility and validity of the adolescent health profile-types. Med Care 1998; 36: 1237-1248 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199808000-00011
  20. Loomes G. Disparities between health state measure: an explanation and some implication, York:Department of Economics, University of York:1998
  21. Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 111-124 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300161100