Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: a prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program

References

• Berwick D., Murphy J., Goldman P., Ware J., Barsky A., et al. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care 1991; 29: 169–176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cafarelli D., George C., Stevenson F., Sheridan C., Haacke N. Comparison of two cochlear implant speech processors in better versus poorer performers. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(suppl 166)258–260
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark G., Blamey P., Brown A., Gusby P., Dowell R., et al. The University of Melbourne-Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1987; 38: 1–18
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1988
   Google Scholar
• Cook T. D., Campbell D. T. Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1979
   Google Scholar
• Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: the Total Design Method. Wiley, New York 1978
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M., O'Brien B., Stoddart G., Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D., Furlong W., Torrance G. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 (HUI2/3) 15-item Questionnaire for Self-administered, Self-assessed Usual Health Status. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton 1996
   Google Scholar
• Furlong W., Feeny D., Torrance G., Goldsmith C., DePauw S., et al. Multiplicative Multi-attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: a Technical Report. McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Hamilton 1998, Working Paper 98–11
   Google Scholar
• Gantz B., Tyler R., Woodworth G. Preliminary results with the Clarion cochlear implant in post-lingually deaf adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(suppl 166)268–269
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Adult Hearing Aid Fittings and Services: Scientific and Technical Report. Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research, Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust, Glasgow 1997
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G. The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement. Quality of Life Res 2003; 12: 1081–1088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Hogan A. Measuring disability-specific patient benefit in cochlear implant programs: developing a short form of the Glasgow Health Status Inventory, the Hearing Participation Scale. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 535–544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of utility measures. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2001; 1: 215–228
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Day N. A. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQol) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001a; 33: 358–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Day N. A comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments. Aust Studies Health Service Administration 2001b; 89: 151–179
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Day N., McNeil H. Using the ‘Assessment of Quality of Life’ (AQoL) Instrument. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne 2000, Technical Report 12
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Quality of Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan A. Implant outcomes-towards a mixed methodology for evaluating the efficacy of adult cochlear implant programs. Disabil Rehabil 1997; 19: 235–243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan A., Hawthorne G., Kethel L., Giles E., White K., et al. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes from adult cochlear implantation: a cross-sectional study. Cochlear Implants Int 2001; 2: 115–128
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hogan A., Stewart M., Giles E. It's a whole new ball game- employment experiences of people with a cochlear implant. Cochlear Implants Int 2002; 3: 54–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hollows R., Dowell R., Cowan R., Skok M., Pyman B., et al. Continuing improvements in speech processing for adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(suppl 166)292–294
   Google Scholar
• Palmer C., Niparko J., Wyatt R., Rothman M., Lissovoy G. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Head Surg 1999; 125: 1221–1228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedhazur E., Schmelkin L. Measurement, Design and Analysis: an Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1991
   Google Scholar
• Pedley K., Giles E., Hogan A. Structuring Rehabilitation. Whurr, London 2004
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J., Hawthorne G. The Australian quality of life (AQoL) instrument: psychometric properties of the descriptive system and initial validation. Aust Studies Health Service Administration 1998; 85: 315–342
   Google Scholar
• Rosen M. On randomized control trials and lifestyle interventions. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 993–994
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SPSS. SPSS for Windows. 9.00. SPSS Inc, Chicago 1999
   Google Scholar
• Summerfield A., Marshall D. Cochlear Implants in the UK 1990–1994. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham 1995
   Google Scholar
• Ware J., Kosinski M., Keller S. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34: 220–233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHOQoL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 551–558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yammarino F., Skinner S., Childers T. Understanding mail survey response behavior: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 1991; 55: 613–639
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar