Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42862436›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2026

Economic Evaluations of Hearing Interventions in Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Evidence and Methods.

Smriti Raichand, Shan Jiang, Junling Weng, Antonio Ahumada-Canale, Sabrina Lenzen, Piers Dawes, Bonny Parkinson, Yingyao Chen, Yuanyuan Gu

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Smriti Raichand *Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School and Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Shan Jiang *Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School and Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Junling Weng *National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Antonio Ahumada-CanaleCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sabrina LenzenCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Piers DawesCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Bonny ParkinsonMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School and Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yingyao ChenNational Health Commission Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. yychen@shmu.edu.cn.
Yuanyuan GuMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School and Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. yuanyuan.gu@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3816-9106

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund MRF2007432Medical Research Future Fund MRF2024352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAge-related hearing loss is common among older adults and is associated with poorer quality of life, falls, cognitive and psychosocial consequences, and increased healthcare use. Hearing aids, cochlear implants and rehabilitation services may improve outcomes, but their economic value remains unclear. This systematic review assessed cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit evidence for hearing interventions in older adults and examined methods, assumptions and outcome measures used in the evaluations.

methodsMedline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and EconLit were searched from inception to August 2026 for trial- or model-based full economic evaluations of hearing interventions in adults ≥ 60 years. Eligible studies included cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). Costs were standardised to 2024 US dollars. Quality was assessed using CHEQUE for CEAs and the Drummond checklist for CBAs.

resultsA total of 27 studies in 28 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 22 studies reported CEAs, including 19 CUAs, and 6 CBAs; 1 study reported both a CUA and a CBA. CEAs generally found cochlear implants and hearing aids to be cost-effective compared with no intervention, and cochlear implants were often cost-effective compared with hearing aids in eligible populations. Post-hearing-aid counselling or rehabilitation, transcutaneous bone conduction devices and cochlear implant processor upgrades were generally cost-effective. CBAs indicated positive net monetary benefits. Health-related quality of life was most commonly measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Costs typically included device, procedure and physician-visit costs. Key drivers included utility gains, intervention costs, age at intervention and device compliance. Limitations included omission of downstream costs, limited carer and societal impacts, inconsistent preference-based outcome measurement, insufficient model validation, limited equity analysis and no evaluations in institutional and long-term care.

conclusionsHearing interventions, particularly hearing aids and cochlear implants, appear to offer good economic value for older adults. Future evaluations should capture broader benefits, downstream costs, carer and long-term care impacts, and use transparent, standardised methods.

Indexed as

Cost–benefit analysisCost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationHearing aidsHearing lossOlder adultsQuality-adjusted life years

Identifiers

PMID42862436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.