Cost-effectiveness of a vocational enablement protocol for employees with hearing impairment; design of a randomized controlled trial

BMC Public Health

Sophia E Kramer⁴  Joost M Festen⁴  Judith E Bosmans¹  S Theo Goverts⁴  Johannes R Anema²  Arjenne HM Gussenhoven³ 

[1] Department of Health Sciences and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Research Center for Insurance Medicine AMC-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Public and Occupational Health and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department ENT/Audiology and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Intervention;    Integrated care;    Occupational physician;    Psychosocial problems;    Economic evaluation;    'Need for recovery after work';    Hearing loss;   

Others  :  1163824
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-151

 received in 2012-01-31, accepted in 2012-03-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Hearing impairment at the workplace, and the resulting psychosocial problems are a major health problem with substantial costs for employees, companies, and society. Therefore, it is important to develop interventions to support hearing impaired employees. The objective of this article is to describe the design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the (cost-) effectiveness of a Vocational Enablement Protocol (VEP) compared with usual care.

Methods/Design

Participants will be selected with the 'Hearing and Distress Screener'. The study population will consist of 160 hearing impaired employees. The VEP intervention group will be compared with usual care. The VEP integrated care programme consists of a multidisciplinary assessment of auditory function, work demands, and personal characteristics. The goal of the intervention is to facilitate participation in work. The primary outcome measure of the study is 'need for recovery after work'. Secondary outcome measures are coping with hearing impairment, distress, self-efficacy, psychosocial workload, job control, general health status, sick leave, work productivity, and health care use. Outcome measures will be assessed by questionnaires at baseline, and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline. The economic evaluation will be performed from both a societal and a company perspective. A process evaluation will also be performed.

Discussion

Interventions addressing occupational difficulties of hearing impaired employees are rare but highly needed. If the VEP integrated care programme proves to be (cost-) effective, the intervention can have an impact on the well-being of hearing impaired employees, and thereby, on the costs for the company as well for the society.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2782

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Gussenhoven et al; BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gommer AM, Poos MJJC: Prevalence and incidence by age and sex. (In Dutch: Prevalentie en incidentie naar leeftijd en geslacht). 2010.
• [2]Cuijpers M, Lautenbach H, Kösters L: Disabled employees 2006 (In Dutch: Arbeidsgehandicapten 2006). Report of the Dutch Ministy of Social Affairs and Employment; 2007.
• [3]Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M: Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000. Global burden of Disease. 2000.
• [4]Ruben RJ: Redefining the survival of the fittest: communication disorders in the 21st century. Laryngoscope 2000, 110:241-245.
• [5]Morata TC, Themann CL, Randolph RF, Verbsky BL, Byrne DC, Reeves ER: Working in noise with a hearing loss: perceptions from workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers. Ear Hear 2005, 26:529-545.
• [6]Ringdahl A, Grimby A: Severe-profound hearing impairment and health-related quality of life among post-lingual deafened Swedish adults. Scand Audiol 2000, 29:266-275.
• [7]Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T: Occupational performance: comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the amsterdam checklist for hearing and work. Int J Audiol 2006, 45:503-512.
• [8]Jennings MB, Shaw L: Impact of hearing loss in the workplace: raising questions about partnerships with professionals. Work 2008, 30:289-295.
• [9]Hetu R, Getty L: Development of a rehabilitation program for people affected with occupational hearing loss. 1. A new paradigm. Audiology 1991, 30:305-316.
• [10]Sluiter JK, van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MH: The influence of work characteristics on the need for recovery and experienced health: a study on coach drivers. Ergonomics 1999, 42:573-583.
• [11]Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B: The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998, 3:322-355.
• [12]Nachtegaal J, Kuik DJ, Anema JR, Goverts ST, Festen JM, Kramer SE: Hearing status, need for recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: results from an internet-based national survey on hearing. Int J Audiol 2009, 48:684-691.
• [13]Danermark B: A review of the psychosocial effects of hearing impairment in the working-age population. In The impact of genetic hearing impairment Edited by Stephens D, Jones L. 2005, 106-136.
• [14]Nachtegaal J, Festen JM, Kramer SE: Hearing ability in working life and its relationship with sick leave and self-reported work productivity. Ear Hear 2012, 33:94-103.
• [15]Mohr PE, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL, Conkey-Robbins A, Niparko JK, Rittenhouse RK, Skinner MW: The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000, 16:1120-1135.
• [16]Sorgdrager B, Doornbusch J, van Gaalen-Mulder P, Hoorenman TAM, de Jager HJ, Marinus E, Nijboer AP, Putman J, Tiessink W: NVAB guideline, preventing occupational hearing loss by a hearing protection program. (In Dutch: NVAB richtlijn, Preventie beroepsslechthorendheid, door een effectief gehoorbeschermingsprogramma). 2006.
• [17]Eekhof JAH, van Balen FAM, Fokke HE, Mul M, Ek JW, Boomsma LJ: NHG-standard 'hearing impairment'. (In Dutch: NHG-standaard 'Slechthorendheid'). 2006.
• [18]Kramer SE: Hearing impairment, work, and vocational enablement. Int J Audiol 2008, 47(Suppl 2):S124-S130.
• [19]World Health Organization: ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. 2001.
• [20]Terluin B, van Rhenen W, Schaufeli WB, de Haan M: The Four Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): measuring distress and other mental health problems in a working population. Work Stress 2004, 18:187-207.
• [21]Terluin B, van Marwijk HW, Ader HJ, de Vet HC, Penninx BW, Hermens ML, van Boeijen CA, van Balkom AJ, van der Klink JJ, Stalman WA: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry 2006, 6:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Braam C, van Oostrom SH, Terluin B, Vasse R, de Vet HC, Anema JR: Validation study of a distress screener. J Occup Rehabil 2009, 19:231-237.
• [23]Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T: Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 2004, 43:15-28.
• [24]Smits C, Merkus P, Houtgast T: How we do it: the dutch functional hearing-screening tests by telephone and internet. Clin Otolaryngol 2006, 31:436-440.
• [25]Smits C, Kramer SE, Houtgast T: Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population. Ear Hear 2006, 27:538-549.
• [26]van Veldhoven M, Broersen S: Measurement quality and validity of the "need for recovery scale". Occup Environ Med 2003, 60(Suppl 1):i3-i9.
• [27]de Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH: Psychometric properties of the need for recovery after work scale: test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change. Occup Environ Med 2006, 63:202-206.
• [28]Festen JM, Plomp R: Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990, 88:1725-1736.
• [29]Plomp R, Mimpen AM: Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979, 18:43-52.
• [30]Boymans M, Goverts ST, Kramer SE, Festen JM, Dreschler WA: A prospective multi-centre study of the benefits of bilateral hearing aids. Ear Hear 2008, 29:930-941.
• [31]Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Festen JM, Tobi H: The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiology 1996, 35:277-287.
• [32]van Veldhoven M, Meijman TF: The measurement of psychosocial job demands with a questionnaire. (In Dutch: Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA)). 1994.
• [33]Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Zekveld AA, Goverts ST, Kramer SE: Factor structure and reliability of the Dutch version of seven scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009, 52:454-464.
• [34]Mokkink LB, Knol DL, van Nispen RM, Kramer SE: Improving the quality and applicability of the Dutch scales of the communication profile for the hearing impaired using item response theory. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010, 53:556-571.
• [35]Bakker IM, Terluin B, van Marwijk HW, Gundy CM, Smit JH, van Mechelen W, Stalman WA: Effectiveness of a Minimal Intervention for Stress-related mental disorders with Sick leave (MISS); study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. BMC Publ Health 2006, 6:124. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]van Oostrom SH, Anema JR, Terluin B, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van Mechelen W: Cost-effectiveness of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with common mental disorders: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Publ Health 2008, 8:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [38]Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, McDonnell J, Krabbe PF, van Busschbach JJ: Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005, 149:1574-1578.
• [39]Bosscher RJ, Smit JH: Confirmatory factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale. Behav Res Ther 1998, 36:339-343.
• [40]Nachtegaal J, Smit JH, Smits C, Bezemer PD, van Beek JH, Festen JM, Kramer SE: The association between hearing status and psychosocial health before the age of 70 years: results from an internet-based national survey on hearing. Ear Hear 2009, 30:302-312.
• [41]Driessen MT, Anema JR, Proper KI, Bongers PM, van der Beek AJ: Stay@Work: participatory ergonomics to prevent low back and neck pain among workers: design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:145. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Koopmanschap MA: PRODISQ: a modular questionnaire on productivity and disease for economic evaluation studies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005, 5:23-28.
• [43]Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, Pronk N, Simon G, Stang P, Ustun TB, et al.: The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003, 45:156-174.
• [44]Kessler RC, Ames M, Hymel PA, Loeppke R, McKenas DK, Richling DE, Stang PE, Ustun TB: Using the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) to evaluate the indirect workplace costs of illness. J Occup Environ Med 2004, 46:S23-S37.
• [45]Hakkart-van Roijen L: Manual Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). 2002.
• [46]Karasek R: Job Content Questionnaire and user's guide. 1985.
• [47]Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF: Standardisation of costs: the dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Pharmaco Economics 2002, 20:443-454.
• [48]Hakkart-van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM: Manual for cost studies, methods and standard cost-prices for economic evaluations in health care. (In Dutch: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties). 2010.
• [49]Z-index.G-Standaard: The Hague, The Netherlands: Z-index. 2002.
• [50]Burton A, Billingham LJ, Bryan S: Cost-effectiveness in clinical trials: using multiple imputation to deal with incomplete cost data. Clin Trials 2007, 4:154-161.
• [51]Van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL: Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med 1999, 18:681-694.
• [52]Efron B: Missing data, imputation, and the bootstrap. J Am Stat Assoc 1994, 89:463-475.
• [53]Briggs A, Fenn P: Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998, 7:723-740.
• [54]Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004, 13:405-415.
• [55]Steckler A, Linnan L: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. An overview. In Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. 1st edition. Jossey-Bass; 2002:1-23.
• [56]Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Brock E: RE-AIM: evidence-based standards and a Web resource to improve translation of research into practice. Ann Behav Med 2004, 28:75-80.
• [57]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-1327.
• [58]Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, van der Weide WE, Piirainen H, Anema JR, van Amstel RJ, Hartog F: Patient satisfaction with occupational health physicians, development of a questionnaire. Occup Environ Med 2005, 62:119-123.