Hearing dogs for people with severe and profound hearing loss: a wait-list design randomised controlled trial investigating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2021
14 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
07
09
2020
accepted:
06
09
2021
entrez:
15
10
2021
pubmed:
16
10
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hearing loss increases the risk of poor outcomes across a range of life domains. Where hearing loss is severe or profound, audiological interventions and rehabilitation have limited impact. Hearing dogs offer an alternative, or additional, intervention. They live permanently with recipients, providing sound support and companionship. A single-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the impacts of a hearing dog on mental well-being, anxiety, depression, problems associated with hearing loss (responding to sounds, fearfulness/social isolation), and perceived dependency on others. Participants were applicants to the UK charity 'Hearing Dogs for Deaf People'. Eligibility criteria were as follows: first-time applicant; applying for a hearing dog (as opposed to other support provided by the charity). Participants were randomised 1:1 to the following: receive a hearing dog sooner than usual [HD], or within the usual application timeframe (wait-list [WL] comparator). The primary outcome was mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) 6 months (T1) after HD received a hearing dog. The cost-effectiveness analysis took a health and social care perspective. In total, 165 participants were randomised (HD n = 83, WL n = 82). A total of 112 (67.9%) were included in the primary analysis (HD n = 55, WL n = 57). At T1, mental well-being was significantly higher in the HD arm (adjusted mean difference 2.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.79, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in anxiety, depression, functioning, fearfulness/social isolation, and perceived dependency, favouring the HD arm, were also observed. On average, HD participants had used fewer statutory health and social care resources. In a scenario whereby costs of provision were borne by the public sector, hearing dogs do not appear to be value for money. If the public sector made a partial contribution, it is possible that hearing dogs would be cost-effective from a public sector perspective. Hearing dogs appear to benefit recipients across a number of life domains, at least in the short term. Within the current funding model (costs entirely borne by the charity), hearing dogs are cost-effective from the public sector perspective. Whilst it would not be cost-effective to fully fund the provision of hearing dogs by the public sector, a partial contribution could be explored. The trial was retrospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry on 28.1.2019: ISRCTN36452009 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hearing loss increases the risk of poor outcomes across a range of life domains. Where hearing loss is severe or profound, audiological interventions and rehabilitation have limited impact. Hearing dogs offer an alternative, or additional, intervention. They live permanently with recipients, providing sound support and companionship.
METHODS
METHODS
A single-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the impacts of a hearing dog on mental well-being, anxiety, depression, problems associated with hearing loss (responding to sounds, fearfulness/social isolation), and perceived dependency on others. Participants were applicants to the UK charity 'Hearing Dogs for Deaf People'. Eligibility criteria were as follows: first-time applicant; applying for a hearing dog (as opposed to other support provided by the charity). Participants were randomised 1:1 to the following: receive a hearing dog sooner than usual [HD], or within the usual application timeframe (wait-list [WL] comparator). The primary outcome was mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) 6 months (T1) after HD received a hearing dog. The cost-effectiveness analysis took a health and social care perspective.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 165 participants were randomised (HD n = 83, WL n = 82). A total of 112 (67.9%) were included in the primary analysis (HD n = 55, WL n = 57). At T1, mental well-being was significantly higher in the HD arm (adjusted mean difference 2.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.79, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in anxiety, depression, functioning, fearfulness/social isolation, and perceived dependency, favouring the HD arm, were also observed. On average, HD participants had used fewer statutory health and social care resources. In a scenario whereby costs of provision were borne by the public sector, hearing dogs do not appear to be value for money. If the public sector made a partial contribution, it is possible that hearing dogs would be cost-effective from a public sector perspective.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Hearing dogs appear to benefit recipients across a number of life domains, at least in the short term. Within the current funding model (costs entirely borne by the charity), hearing dogs are cost-effective from the public sector perspective. Whilst it would not be cost-effective to fully fund the provision of hearing dogs by the public sector, a partial contribution could be explored.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The trial was retrospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry on 28.1.2019: ISRCTN36452009 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 34649618
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05607-9
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05607-9
pmc: PMC8515662
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
700Subventions
Organisme : School for Social Care Research
ID : C088/CM/UYYB-P111
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
World Health Organization. Deafness and hearing loss: Factsheet, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss (Accessed 18.7.2019 2019).
Turunen-Taheri S, Carlsson P-I, Johnson A-C, Hellström S. Severe-to-profound hearing impairment: demographic data, gender differences and benefits of audiological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(23):2766–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1477208 .
doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1477208
pubmed: 29893149
Turton L, Smith P. Prevalence & characteristics of severe and profound hearing loss in adults in a UK National Health Service clinic. Int J Audiol. 2013;52:92–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.735376 .
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.735376
pubmed: 23205712
Lawrence BJ, Jayakody DMP, Bennett RJ, Eikelboom RH, Gasson N, Friedland PL. Hearing loss and depression in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerontologist. 2019;60(3):e137–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz009 .
doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz009
Huddle MG, Goman AM, Kernizan FC, Foley DM, Price C, Frick KD, et al. The economic impact of adult hearing loss: a systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(10):1040–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1243 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1243
pubmed: 28796850
Nordvik Ø, Laugen Heggdal PO, Brännström J, et al. Generic quality of life in persons with hearing loss: a systematic literature review. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2018;18:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12901-018-0051-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s12901-018-0051-6
pubmed: 29386982
pmcid: 5778781
Lin HW, Mahboubi H, Bhattacharyya N. Self-reported hearing difficulty and risk of accidental injury in US adults, 2007 to 2015. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(5):413–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0039 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0039
pubmed: 29566111
pmcid: 5876889
Shukla A, Harper M, Pedersen E, Goman A, Suen JJ, Price C, et al. Hearing loss, loneliness, and social isolation: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(5):622–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820910377 .
doi: 10.1177/0194599820910377
pubmed: 32151193
pmcid: 8292986
Wells TS, Nickels LD, Rush SR, Musich SA, Wu L, Bhattarai GR, et al. Characteristics and health outcomes associated with hearing loss and hearing aid use among older adults. J Aging Health. 2019;32(7-8):724–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264319848866 .
doi: 10.1177/0898264319848866
pubmed: 31092107
pmcid: 7586498
Loughrey DG, Kelly ME, Kelley GA, Brennan S, Lawlor BA. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(2):115–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.2513 .
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2017.2513
pubmed: 29222544
Gonzales SC, Proctor D, Mandavia R, Evans H, Goman AM, Lin FR, et al. [P4–344]: Hearing loss and risk of incident cognitive impairment and dementia: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(7S_Part_29):P1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.2214 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.2214
Kitterick PT, Smith SN, Lucas L. Hearing instruments for unilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear. 2016;37(5):495–507. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000313 .
doi: 10.1097/aud.0000000000000313
pubmed: 27232073
pmcid: 4998125
Maidment DW, Barker AB, Xia J, Ferguson MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(10):721–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2018.1493546 .
doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1493546
pubmed: 30388942
Michaud HN, Duchesne L. Aural rehabilitation for older adults with hearing loss: impacts on quality of life—a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(07):596–609. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15090 .
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15090
pubmed: 28722643
Hawkins DB. Effectiveness of counseling-based adult group aural rehabilitation programs: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16(07):485–93. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16.7.8 .
doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16.7.8
pubmed: 16295235
Ferguson M, Maidment D, Henshaw H, Heffernan E. Evidence-based interventions for adult aural rehabilitation: that was then, this is now. Semin Hear. 2019;40(01):068–84. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676784 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676784
Assistance Dog International. Assistance Dogs International, https://assistancedogsinternational.org/ (2020, Accessed 8 April 2020).
Amiot C, Bastian B, Martens P. People and companion animals: it takes two to tango. BioScience. 2016;66(7):552–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw051 .
doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw051
Bremhorst A, Mongillo P, Howell T, et al. Spotlight on assistance dogs-legislation, welfare and research. Animals (Basel). 2018;8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080129 .
Baxter K, BB. A review of methods of evaluation and outcome measures of a complex intervention in social care: the case of assistance dogs. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York; 2016.
Rintala D, Matamoros R and L S. Effects of assistance dogs on persons with mobility of hearing impairments: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008; 45: 489-504, 4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2007.06.0094 .
Guest CM, Collis GM, McNicholas J. Hearing dogs: a longitudinal study of social and psychological effects on deaf and hard-of-hearing recipients. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2006;11(2):252–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj028 .
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enj028
pubmed: 16452611
Hart LA, Zasloff RL, Benfatto AM. The pleasures and problems of hearing dog ownership. Psychol Rep. 1995;77(3):969–70. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.969 .
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.969
pubmed: 8559940
Hart LA, Zasloff RL, Benfatto AM. The socializing role of hearing dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;47:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01006-8 .
doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01006-8
Hall SS, MacMichael J, Turner A, Mills DS. A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: a pilot study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0640-x .
doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0640-x
pubmed: 28356121
pmcid: 5372266
Rodriguez KE, Greer J, Yatcilla JK, Beck AM, O’Haire ME. The effects of assistance dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243302
pubmed: 33264370
pmcid: 7710121
Lundqvist M, Alwin J, Levin L-Å. Certified service dogs - a cost-effectiveness analysis appraisal. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0219911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219911 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219911
pubmed: 31513601
pmcid: 6742471
Lundqvist M, Levin L-Å, Roback K, Alwin J. The impact of service and hearing dogs on health-related quality of life and activity level: a Swedish longitudinal intervention study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):497. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3014-0 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3014-0
pubmed: 29945630
pmcid: 6020368
Walther S, Yamamoto M, Thigpen AP, et al. Assistance dogs: historic patterns and roles of dogs placed by adi or igdf accredited facilities and by non-accredited U.S. facilities. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00001 .
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. Hearing dogs help deaf people to leave loneliness behind, https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/ (2020, Accessed 27/4/2020 2020).
Stuttard L, Hewitt C, Fairhurst C, Weatherly H, Walker S, Longo F, et al. 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. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(4):e15452. https://doi.org/10.2196/15452 .
doi: 10.2196/15452
pubmed: 32301737
pmcid: 7195660
Allen K, Blascovich J. The value of service dogs for people with severe ambulatory disabilities. A randomized controlled trial. Jama. 1996;275:1001–6.
doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03530370039028
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. A hearing dog’s pregnancy and our newborn puppies, https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/training-our-puppies/hearing-dog-pregnancy-newborn-puppies/ (2021, Accessed 23/08/2021 2021).
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. What happens in the first eight weeks of a hearing dog puppy's life?, https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/training-our-puppies/the-first-eight-weeks-of-a-hearing-dog-puppys-life/ (2021, Accessed 23/08/2021 2021).
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. How do we train our puppies?, https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/training-our-puppies/ (2021, Accessed 12/07/2021).
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. How a deaf person and a hearing dog become a partnership., https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/training-our-puppies/placement-course/ (2021, Accessed 23/08/2021).
Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, et al. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-15 .
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-15
pubmed: 19228398
pmcid: 2669062
Ng Fat L, Scholes S, Boniface S, et al. Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): findings from the Health Survey for England. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:1129–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1454-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1454-8
pubmed: 27853963
Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, et al. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:461–4. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.5.461 .
doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.5.461
pubmed: 11983645
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 .
doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
pubmed: 16717171
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:606–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
pubmed: 11556941
pmcid: 1495268
DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Med Care. 2006;44:S50–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245426.10853.30 .
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245426.10853.30
pubmed: 17060836
Rogers KD, Dodds C, Campbell M, et al. The validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) with deaf British sign language users in the UK. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0976-x .
doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0976-x
pubmed: 30041627
pmcid: 6056943
Rogers KD, Young A, Lovell K, et al. The British Sign Language versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale, and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013;18:110–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens040 .
doi: 10.1093/deafed/ens040
pubmed: 23197315
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed: Routledge; 1988. p. 400.
Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ, Miles JNV. Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials? CMAJ. 2006;175:347. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051625 .
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051625
pubmed: 16908892
pmcid: 1534095
Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087 .
doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087
pubmed: 11491192
Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, Janssen MF, Herdman M, van Hout B, et al. Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):699–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3
pubmed: 29476363
pmcid: 5954043
Van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y-S, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
pubmed: 22867780
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual [Process and methods PMG20]. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20 .
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Stevens K, Brazier J, Rowen D. Estimating an exchange rate between the EQ-5D-3L and ASCOT. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:653–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0910-x .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0910-x
pubmed: 28623464
Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, et al. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014:32, 1157–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 .
Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Zamora B, Toswse A. Issues surrounding the estimation of the opportunity cost of adopting a new health care technology: areas for further research: Office for Health Economics.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. 2013.
Winkle M, Crowe TK, Hendrix I. Service dogs and people with physical disabilities partnerships: a systematic review. Occup Ther Int. 2012;19:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.323 .
doi: 10.1002/oti.323
pubmed: 21858889
Saunders J, Parast L, Babey SH, Miles JV. Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179494 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179494
pubmed: 28644848
pmcid: 5482437
Walker S, Griffin S, Asaria M, et al. Striving for a societal perspective: a framework for economic evaluations when costs and effects fall on multiple sectors and decision makers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:577–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8
pubmed: 31098947
pmcid: 6748888