Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Receiving a Hearing Dog on Mental Well-Being and Health in People With Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

assistance dog economics hearing loss qualitative research randomized controlled trial

Journal

JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 Apr 2020
Historique:
received: 18 07 2019
accepted: 14 01 2020
revised: 05 12 2019
entrez: 18 4 2020
pubmed: 18 4 2020
medline: 18 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

People with hearing loss, particularly those who lose their hearing in adulthood, are at an increased risk of social isolation, mental health difficulties, unemployment, loss of independence, risk of accidents, and impaired quality of life. In the United Kingdom, a single third-sector organization provides hearing dogs, a specific type of assistance dog trained to provide sound support to people with hearing loss. These dogs may also deliver numerous psychosocial benefits to recipients. This has not previously been fully investigated. The study aims to evaluate the impact of a hearing dog partnership on the lives of individuals with severe or profound hearing loss. A 2-arm, randomized controlled trial will be conducted within the United Kingdom with 162 hearing dog applicants, aged 18 years and older. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a matched-pairs design to receive a hearing dog sooner than usual (intervention arm: arm B) or to receive a hearing dog within the usual timeframe (comparator arm: arm A). In the effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome is a comparison of mental well-being 6 months after participants in arm B have received a hearing dog (arm A have not yet received a hearing dog), measured using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures include the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Work and Social Adjustments Scale. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness, including health-related quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions and social care-related quality-adjusted life years. Participants will be followed up for up to 2 years. A nested qualitative study will investigate the impacts of having a hearing dog and how these impacts occur. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research's School for Social Care Research. Recruitment commenced in March 2017 and is now complete. A total of 165 participants were randomized. Data collection will continue until January 2020. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. A summary of the findings will be made available to participants. Ethical approval was received from the University of York's Department of Social Policy and Social Work Research Ethics Committee (reference SPSW/S/17/1). The findings from this study will provide, for the first time, strong and reliable evidence on the impact of having a hearing dog on people's lives in terms of their quality of life, well-being, and mental health. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN36452009; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36452009. DERR1-10.2196/15452.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
People with hearing loss, particularly those who lose their hearing in adulthood, are at an increased risk of social isolation, mental health difficulties, unemployment, loss of independence, risk of accidents, and impaired quality of life. In the United Kingdom, a single third-sector organization provides hearing dogs, a specific type of assistance dog trained to provide sound support to people with hearing loss. These dogs may also deliver numerous psychosocial benefits to recipients. This has not previously been fully investigated.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The study aims to evaluate the impact of a hearing dog partnership on the lives of individuals with severe or profound hearing loss.
METHODS METHODS
A 2-arm, randomized controlled trial will be conducted within the United Kingdom with 162 hearing dog applicants, aged 18 years and older. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a matched-pairs design to receive a hearing dog sooner than usual (intervention arm: arm B) or to receive a hearing dog within the usual timeframe (comparator arm: arm A). In the effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome is a comparison of mental well-being 6 months after participants in arm B have received a hearing dog (arm A have not yet received a hearing dog), measured using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures include the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Work and Social Adjustments Scale. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness, including health-related quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions and social care-related quality-adjusted life years. Participants will be followed up for up to 2 years. A nested qualitative study will investigate the impacts of having a hearing dog and how these impacts occur.
RESULTS RESULTS
The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research's School for Social Care Research. Recruitment commenced in March 2017 and is now complete. A total of 165 participants were randomized. Data collection will continue until January 2020. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. A summary of the findings will be made available to participants. Ethical approval was received from the University of York's Department of Social Policy and Social Work Research Ethics Committee (reference SPSW/S/17/1).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this study will provide, for the first time, strong and reliable evidence on the impact of having a hearing dog on people's lives in terms of their quality of life, well-being, and mental health.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN36452009; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36452009.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) UNASSIGNED
DERR1-10.2196/15452.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32301737
pii: v9i4e15452
doi: 10.2196/15452
pmc: PMC7195660
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e15452

Informations de copyright

©Lucy Stuttard, Catherine Hewitt, Caroline Fairhurst, Helen Weatherly, Simon Walker, Francesco Longo, Jane Maddison, Philip Boyle, Bryony Beresford. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 17.04.2020.

Références

Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Soc Work Health Care. 1993;19(1):109-25
pubmed: 8296220
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Feb 25;173(4):293-9
pubmed: 23337978
Int J Audiol. 2013 Feb;52(2):92-7
pubmed: 23205712
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Oct;11(42):1-294
pubmed: 17927921
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Int J Audiol. 2006 Dec;45(12):715-23
pubmed: 17132560
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013 Jan;18(1):110-22
pubmed: 23197315
Health Econ. 2014 Aug;23(8):979-92
pubmed: 24038337
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Mar 29;15(1):59
pubmed: 28356121
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 27;18(1):497
pubmed: 29945630
Health Soc Care Community. 2012 Jul;20(4):388-99
pubmed: 22360567
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jun;19(5):653-661
pubmed: 28623464
Br J Psychiatry. 2002 May;180:461-4
pubmed: 11983645
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 May;36(5):509-522
pubmed: 29427072
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2006 Spring;11(2):252-61
pubmed: 16452611
Psychol Rep. 1995 Dec;77(3 Pt 1):969-70
pubmed: 8559940
Scand Audiol. 2000;29(4):266-75
pubmed: 11195947
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004 Oct;9(4):197-204
pubmed: 15509405
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(4):489-503
pubmed: 18712636
Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(20):1849-56
pubmed: 25391816
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Feb 19;7:15
pubmed: 19228398
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43
pubmed: 11491192
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):372
pubmed: 27809821
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jul 24;16(1):145
pubmed: 30041627
Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S50-9
pubmed: 17060836
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(14):1-503, v-vi
pubmed: 25692211
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1825-34
pubmed: 26887955

Auteurs

Lucy Stuttard (L)

Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Alcuin B Block, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Catherine Hewitt (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Caroline Fairhurst (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Helen Weatherly (H)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Simon Walker (S)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Francesco Longo (F)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Jane Maddison (J)

Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Alcuin B Block, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Philip Boyle (P)

Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Alcuin B Block, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Bryony Beresford (B)

Social Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Alcuin B Block, University of York, York, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH