Cochlear implantation (CI) and deaf education are cost effective management strategies of childhood profound sensorineural hearing loss in Latin America.
CI has been widely established as cost effective in North America and Europe and is considered standard of care in those regions, yet cost effectiveness in other economic environments has not been explored. With 80% of the global hearing loss burden existing in low- and middle-income countries, developing cost effective management strategies in these settings is essential. This analysis represents the continuation of a global assessment of CI and deaf education cost effectiveness.
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela participated in the study. A Disability Adjusted Life Years model was applied with 3% discounting and 10-year length of analysis. Experts from each country supplied cost estimates from known costs and published data. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of device cost, professional salaries, annual number of implants, and probability of device failure. Cost effectiveness was determined using the World Health Organization standard of cost effectiveness ratio/gross domestic product per capita (CER/GDP)<3.
Deaf education was very cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.07-0.93). CI was cost effective in all countries (CER/GDP 0.69-2.96), with borderline cost effectiveness in the Guatemalan sensitivity analysis (Max CER/GDP 3.21).
Both cochlear implantation and deaf education are widely cost effective in Latin America. In the lower-middle income economy of Guatemala, implant cost may have a larger impact. GDP is less influential in the middle- and high-income economies included in this study.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
3
4%
Social Sciences
3
4%
Other
11
14%
Unknown
27
35%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,388,554
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Otology & Neurotology
#1,161
of 3,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,337
of 348,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Otology & Neurotology
#21
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,960 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
