Agreement between health utility instruments in cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our study were threefold: to compare health utility scores measured with different health utility instruments in adult patients with bilateral deafness, to compare the change in health utility scores after unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation using the different health utility instruments and to assess which health utility instrument would be the most appropriate for future studies on cochlear implantation.

DESIGN

A prospective study.

SETTING

The data for this article were collected as part of a multicentre randomised controlled trial in the Netherlands on the benefits of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation compared to unilateral cochlear implantation.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 38 adult patients with severe to profound bilateral post-lingual sensorineural hearing loss.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants completed various quality of life questionnaires (the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3), a visual analogue scale (VAS) for general quality of life and a VAS for hearing) preoperatively, and one and two years postoperatively. The general health utility instruments (EQ-5D, HUI3 and VAS general) were compared.

RESULTS

The EQ-5D, HUI3 and VAS general utility scores differed significantly. The intraclass correlation coefficients showed poor to no agreement between these instruments. A gain in health utility after cochlear implantation was found with the HUI3 and VAS general. The highest gain in health utility was found with the HUI3.

CONCLUSIONS

A health utility score depends on the health utility instrument that is used in a specific patient population. We recommend using the HUI3 in future studies on cochlear implantation.