Predicting Individual Hearing-Aid Preference From Self-Reported Listening Experiences in Daily Life.

OBJECTIVES: The study compared the utility of two approaches for collecting real-world listening experiences to predict hearing-aid preference: a retrospective questionnaire (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale [SSQ]) and in-situ Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). The rationale being that each approach likely provides different and yet complementary information. In addition, it was examined how self-reported listening activity and hearing-aid data-logging can augment EMAs for individualized and contextualized hearing outcome assessments. DESIGN: Experienced hearing-aid users (N = 40) with mild-to-moderate symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss completed the SSQ questionnaire and gave repeated EMAs for two wear periods of 2-weeks each with two different hearing-aid models that differed mainly in their noise reduction technology. The EMAs were linked to a self-reported listening activity and sound environment parameters (from hearing-aid data-logging) recorded at the time of EMA completion. Wear order was randomized by hearing-aid model. Linear mixed-effects models and Random Forest models with five-fold cross-validation were used to assess the statistical associations between listening experiences and end-of-trial preferences, and to evaluate how accurately EMAs predicted preference within individuals. RESULTS: Only 6 of the 49 SSQ items significantly discriminated between responses made for the end-of-trial preferred versus nonpreferred hearing-aid model. For the EMAs, questions related to perception of the sound from the hearing aids were all significantly associated with preference, and these associations were strongest in EMAs completed in sound environments with predominantly low SNR and listening activities related to television, people talking, nonspecific listening, and music listening. Mean differences in listening experiences from SSQ and EMA correctly predicted preference in 71.8% and 72.5% of included participants, respectively. However, a prognostic classification of single EMAs into end-of-trial preference with a Random Forest model achieved a 93.8% accuracy when contextual information was included. CONCLUSIONS: SSQ and EMA predicted preference equally well when considering mean differences, however, EMAs had a high prognostic classifications accuracy due to the repeated-measures nature, which make them ideal for individualized hearing outcome investigations, especially when responses are combined with contextual information about the sound environment.

Remote hearing-aid delivery and support: perspectives of patients and their hearing care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of patients and hearing care providers (HCPs) about an adult remote hearing-aid delivery service implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Service evaluation via surveys. The patient survey measured satisfaction with the service, perceived hearing-aid handling skills, and preferences for future services. The HCP survey explored the impact of teleaudiology on outcomes compared to in-person care and factors important for successful teleaudiology. STUDY SAMPLE: 378 patients and 14 HCPs. RESULTS: Patients were highly satisfied with the service and self-reported good hearing-aid handling skills. However, 2 in 3 patients said they would prefer a future hearing-aid fitting to be in-person rather than remote. HCPs thought teleaudiology had positive impacts on convenience, accessibility, and flexibility, but negative impacts on communication, rapport, and the quality of care. HCPs considered computer literacy and individual preferences to be important for successful remote care; the age of the patient was considered less important. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were generally highly satisfied with the service and for 1 in 3 it was their preferred mode of future hearing-aid fitting. Future services should be aware that a one-size-fits-all approach will not satisfy all patients and that teleaudiology should be offered on the basis of individual preference.

The impact of using the Ida "My Hearing Explained" tool on audiologists' language and patient understanding of hearing test results: a comparison with standard audiogram explanations.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the impact of Ida's "My Hearing Explained" (MHE) tool on audiologists' language and patients' understanding/interpretation of hearing test results. DESIGN: Audiologists were video-recorded in two sequential conditions: 1) giving standard audiogram explanations to 13 patients and, 2) following discretionary self-training, giving explanations using the MHE tool (nine patients). Outcomes of interest were audiologists' language complexity, use of jargon, and audiologist-patient interactivity. Semi-structured patient interviews, conducted 1-7 days after appointments, were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Patient recall was verified. STUDY SAMPLE: Four audiologists from one United Kingdom audiology service, and 22 patients (mean age 63.5 yrs) participated. RESULTS: In comparison to standard audiogram explanations, audiologists' language was simpler and audiologist-patient interactivity greater with the MHE tool. Interview data analysis revealed differences between explanation types within the themes of "Understanding" and "Interpretation." 54% (standard audiogram) and 22% (MHE tool) of patients expressed a desire for takeaway information. 31% (standard audiogram) and 67% (MHE tool) of patients reported their explanation helped them relay their results to others. Four patients (one receiving the MHE tool) incorrectly recalled information, suggesting inadequate understanding in these cases. CONCLUSIONS: The MHE tool has potential for improving the accessibility and comprehensibility of hearing test results.

Reporting of auditory symptoms over time: (in)consistencies, expectations and the nocebo effect.

Objective: Consistent symptom reporting for conditions like tinnitus that do not have an associated sign is critical for evaluating severity and intervention effectiveness, and for interpreting research findings. There is little research examining reporting of tinnitus and hearing difficulty over time. We address this here by comparing reported hearing difficulty and tinnitus at two time-points.Design: A cross-sectional study comparing symptom reporting in March 2019 and August/September 2021 using data from two online surveys of the same cohort. Although each survey was designed to address a different question, both asked about symptoms of tinnitus and hearing difficulties and enabled this exploratory analysis.Study sample: 6881 members of the UK general public aged 18+ years.Results: Inconsistent reporting was evident - many participants who reported experiencing tinnitus and/or hearing difficulties in 2019, said in 2021 that they had never had such symptoms before. Additionally, reports of new tinnitus/hearing difficulties in 2021 were unexpectedly high, equating to 18-month incidence rates of 13.6% and 11.7%, respectively.Conclusions: Psychosocial factors, expectations and context impact symptom reporting. This should be considered when treating patients and interpreting research findings. Using real-time data collection methods could thus provide a better understanding of experiences of tinnitus and hearing.

Copresence Was Found to Be Related to Some Pupil Measures in Persons With Hearing Loss While They Performed a Speech-in-Noise Task.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if a manipulation of copresence was related to speech-in-noise task performance, arousal, and effort of persons with hearing loss. Task-related arousal and effort were measured by means of pupillometry. DESIGN: Twenty-nine participants (mean age: 64.6 years) with hearing loss (4-frequency pure-tone average [4F-PTA] of 50.2 dB HL [SD = 8.9 dB] in the right ear and 51.3 dB HL [SD = 8.7 dB] in the left ear; averaged across 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) listened to and repeated spoken Danish sentences that were masked by four streams of continuous speech. Participants were presented with blocks of 20 sentences, during which copresence was manipulated by having participants do the task either alone or accompanied by two observers who were recruited from a similar age group. The task was presented at two difficulty levels, which was accomplished by fixing the signal-to-noise ratio of the speech and masker to match the thresholds at which participants were estimated to correctly repeat 50% (difficult) or 80% (easy) of the sentences in a block. Performance was assessed based on whether or not sentences were repeated correctly. Measures of pupil size (baseline pupil size [BPS], peak pupil dilation [PPD], and mean pupil dilation [MPD]) were used to index arousal and effort. Participants also completed ratings of subjective effort and stress after each block of sentences and a self-efficacy for listening-questionnaire. RESULTS: Task performance was not associated with copresence, but was found to be related to 4F-PTA. An increase in BPS was found for copresence conditions, compared to alone conditions. Furthermore, a post-hoc exploratory analysis revealed that the copresence conditions were associated with a significantly larger pupil size in the second half of the task-evoked pupil response (TEPR). No change in PPD or MPD did was detected between copresence and alone conditions. Self-efficacy, 4F-PTA, and age were not found to be related to the pupil data. Subjective ratings were sensitive to task difficulty but not copresence. CONCLUSION: Copresence was not found to be related to speech-in-noise performance, PPD, or MPD in persons with HL but was associated with an increase in arousal (as indicated by a larger BPS). This could be related to premobilization of effort and/or discomfort in response to the observers' presence. Furthermore, an exploratory analysis of the pupil data showed that copresence was associated with greater pupil dilations in the second half of the TEPR. This may indicate that participants invested more effort during the speech-in-noise task while in the presence of the observers, but that this increase in effort may not necessarily have been related to listening itself. Instead, other speech-in-noise task-related processes, such as preparing to respond, could have been influenced by copresence.

Do UK audiologists feel able to address the hearing, social and emotional needs of their adult patients with hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to investigate the provision of counselling in adult audiological rehabilitation and to highlight training barriers and needs. DESIGN: A service evaluation in which respondents completed a survey in which they rated their knowledge, confidence and competence in addressing the hearing, social and emotional needs of their patients. They were also asked to define counselling. SAMPLE: 64 UK practising audiologists in adult audiological rehabilitation, aged 20->60 years (84% females, 16% males), with a range of years in clinical practice. RESULTS: Counselling definitions fell into three main categories: the audiologist as the doer, the audiologist as the facilitator, and the audiologist and patient as partners. Respondents reported feeling more able to counsel the hearing related needs of their patients, than emotional or social needs. There were significant positive statistical associations between counselling training completed and self-rated counselling abilities for managing emotional needs. Clinical experience was not associated with self-rated counselling. Lack of supervision and training were identified as some of the main barriers to providing emotional support. Almost all respondents reported a desire for further training in delivering emotional support, with the belief that this would improve services and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: UK audiologists demonstrated person-centred thinking through their definitions of counselling. However, they reported significant barriers in being able to support the needs of adults with hearing loss. Training needs around emotional support in audiology counselling are not currently being met. It is important for clinical training programmes to address this gap by incorporating more counselling courses into their curricula.

Dementia and hearing-aid use: a two-way street.

OBJECTIVES: Hearing-aid use may reduce risk of dementia, but cognitive impairment makes use more challenging. An observed association between reduced hearing-aid use and incident dementia could reflect either or both of these causal paths. The objective was to examine the effects of each path while minimising contamination between paths. METHODS: Health records data from 380,794 Veterans who obtained hearing aids from the US Veterans Affairs healthcare system were analysed. Analysis 1 (n = 72,180) used multivariable logistic regression to model the likelihood of incident dementia 3.5-5 years post hearing-aid fitting for patients free of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Analysis 2 (n = 272,748) modelled the likelihood of being a persistent hearing-aid user at 3 years 2 months after fitting, contrasting subgroups by level of cognitive function at the time of fitting. Analysis time windows were optimized relative to dataset constraints. Models were controlled for available relevant predictors. RESULTS: The adjusted OR for incident dementia was 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) for persistent (versus non-persistent) hearing-aid users. The adjusted OR for hearing-aid use persistence was 0.46 (95% CI 0.43-0.48) in those with pre-existing dementia (versus those remaining free of MCI and dementia). CONCLUSION: Substantial independent associations are observed in both directions, suggesting that hearing-aid use decreases risk of dementia and that better cognitive function predisposes towards persistent use. Research studying protective effects of hearing-aid use against dementia needs to account for cognitive status. Clinically, hearing devices and hearing care processes must be accessible and usable for all, regardless of their cognitive status.

Barriers and facilitators to delivery of group audiological rehabilitation programs: a survey based on the COM-B model.

OBJECTIVE: To canvas the views of Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians regarding group audiological rehabilitation practices. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional self-report survey. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-two Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians, with experience working in an adult rehabilitation setting. RESULTS: Clinicians appeared to positively view the provision of group audiological rehabilitation services, yet were limited in their ability to deliver these services due to organisational barriers. Although some organisational barriers were non-modifiable by the clinician (such as group AR services not prioritised within their workplace, a lack of support from colleagues/managers, lack of resources, and a lack of funding for the delivery of group AR services), others were within the clinicians' ability to change (such as habit formation for recommending these services during clinical appointments). Participants expressed a desire for resources to assist them in delivering group AR, including downloadable lesson plans and information sheets for clients, clinician training videos and client educational videos. Clinicians called for increased diversity in program offerings, specifically relating to the emotional, relational and social impacts of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a framework for the development of interventional studies to increase the utilisation of group audiological rehabilitation services.

Impact of Hearing Loss on Communication During Remote Health Care Encounters.

Introduction: Satisfaction with telemedicine is generally high; however, it can lead to communication problems for people with hearing loss (HL), especially when encounters are conducted by telephone, because of the inability to see the face and lips on which many people with HL rely. Despite acknowledgement that HL might affect telemedicine outcomes, no studies have directly examined this. The primary aims of this study were to determine whether and how HL impacts patient satisfaction and willingness to use telemedicine. Methods: Opinions about telemedicine were assessed in a survey of 383 members of the general public. Data regarding reported hearing ability, use of hearing assistive technology, and preferred form of communication (oral/aural vs. sign language) were also collected; people with HL were intentionally oversampled. Survey items included closed set and open-ended responses. Results: People with HL declined the offer of telemedicine appointments, rated telemedicine outcomes significantly less positively, and had stronger preferences for in person care than did people without HL. Explanations provided for this were directly associated with hearing-related difficulties or the indirect consequences of those difficulties. HL resulted in concerns about communication during the appointment, a lack of privacy when an intermediary helped with communication during the appointment, worries that critical information has been misheard/missed, and anxiety/stress. Conclusions: The needs of people with HL during telemedicine encounters must be addressed to ensure equitable access. Health care providers should take responsibility to communicate clearly with people with HL and individuals with HL should be willing to advocate for their needs and use special access tools during telemedicine appointments.

A Measure of Long-Term Hearing Aid Use Persistence Based on Battery Reordering Data.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the construction of a hearing aid long-term use persistence measure based on battery reorder data. The measure is derived from the notion that hearing aid users keep using their devices for some time after placing a battery order. DESIGN: A hearing aid user is defined as persistent at time T if they placed a battery order within a time span W preceding T. We characterize and validate this measure using electronic health records from a large sample of US Veterans. RESULTS: We describe how to choose parameters T and W for calculating persistence rates in the patient sample. For validation, the associations of persistence with: (1) the duration over which users received outpatient hearing aid care; (2) self-reported hearing aid use shortly after fitting; and (3) patient age and hearing loss are investigated. In all cases, plausible dependencies are observed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that our persistence measure is viable and hope this will motivate its use in similar studies.

The Presence of Another Individual Influences Listening Effort, But Not Performance.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to modify a speech perception in noise test to assess whether the presence of another individual (copresence), relative to being alone, affected listening performance and effort expenditure. Furthermore, this study assessed if the effect of the other individual's presence on listening effort was influenced by the difficulty of the task and whether participants had to repeat the sentences they listened to or not. DESIGN: Thirty-four young, normal-hearing participants (mean age: 24.7 years) listened to spoken Dutch sentences that were masked with a stationary noise masker and presented through a loudspeaker. The participants alternated between repeating sentences (active condition) and not repeating sentences (passive condition). They did this either alone or together with another participant in the booth. When together, participants took turns repeating sentences. The speech-in-noise test was performed adaptively at three intelligibility levels (20%, 50%, and 80% sentences correct) in a block-wise fashion. During testing, pupil size was recorded as an objective outcome measure of listening effort. RESULTS: Lower speech intelligibility levels were associated with increased peak pupil dilation (PPDs) and doing the task in the presence of another individual (compared with doing it alone) significantly increased PPD. No interaction effect between intelligibility and copresence on PPD was found. The results suggested that the change of PPD between doing the task alone or together was especially apparent for people who started the experiment in the presence of another individual. Furthermore, PPD was significantly lower during passive listening, compared with active listening. Finally, it seemed that performance was unaffected by copresence. CONCLUSION: The increased PPDs during listening in the presence of another participant suggest that more effort was invested during the task. However, it seems that the additional effort did not result in a change of performance. This study showed that at least one aspect of the social context of a listening situation (in this case copresence) can affect listening effort, indicating that social context might be important to consider in future cognitive hearing research.

Electronic Health Records As a Platform for Audiological Research: Data Validity, Patient Characteristics, and Hearing-Aid Use Persistence Among 731,213 U.S. Veterans.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents a summary of audiological, general health, and hearing aid (HA) outcome data in a large sample of U.S. Veterans receiving HAs. The current article also provides the foundation for a series of papers that will explore relationships between a wide range of factors and HA outcomes. DESIGN: The patient sample is all (n = 731,213) patients for whom HAs were ordered between April 2012 and October 2014 through the U.S. Veterans Health Administration Remote Order Entry System. For these patients, Veterans Affairs electronic health records (EHRs) stored in various databases provided data on demographics, received diagnostic and procedure codes (2007 to 2017), audiometry, self-reported outcomes up to 6 months postfitting, and HA battery orders (to 2017). Data cleaning and preparation was carried out and is discussed with reference to insights that provide potential value to other researchers pursuing similar studies. HA battery order data over time was used to derive a measure of long-term HA use persistence. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, comparative analyses against other data supported basic validity assessment, and bivariate analyses probed novel associations between patient characteristics and HA use persistence at 2 years postfitting. RESULTS: Following extensive cleaning and data preparation, the data show plausible characteristics on diverse metrics and exhibit adequate validity based on comparisons with other published data. Further, rates of HA use persistence are favorable when compared against therapy persistence data for other major chronic conditions. The data also show that the presence of certain comorbid conditions (Parkinson's disease, diabetes, arthritis, and visual impairment) are associated with significantly lower HA use persistence, as are prior inpatient admissions (especially among new HA recipients), and that increasing levels of multimorbidity, in general, are associated with decreasing HA use persistence. This is all despite the fact that deriving relevant audiological care-process variables from the available records was not straightforward, especially concerning the definition of the date of HA fitting, and the use of battery ordering data to determine long-term HA use persistence. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that utilizing EHRs in audiology has the potential to provide novel insights into clinical practice patterns, audiologic outcomes, and relations between factors pertaining to hearing and to other health conditions in clinical populations, despite the potential pitfalls regarding the lack of control over the variables available and limitations on how the data are entered. We thus conclude that research using EHRs has the potential to be an integral supplement to population-based and epidemiologic research in the field of audiology.

Factors Associated With Self-Perceived Hearing Handicap in Adults From Hispanic/Latino Background: Findings From the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine what factors, including acculturation (language and social contact preferences), were associated with self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. We utilized the Aday-Andersen behavioral model of health services utilization to frame our hypotheses that predisposing characteristics (age, sex, education, city of residence, Hispanic/Latino background, and acculturation), enabling resources (annual income and current health insurance coverage), and need (measured hearing loss and self-reported hearing loss) would be related to clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap as measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory - Screening (HHI-S) version. DESIGN: We analyzed baseline data collected from 2008 to 2011 as part of the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Data were from 6585 adults with hearing loss (defined by a worse-ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz pure-tone average [PTA] of ≥25 dB HL and/or a 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz high-frequency PTA of ≥25 dB HL) aged 18 to 74 years from various Hispanic/Latino backgrounds. We conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression models examining the roles of independent variables of interest representing predisposing, enabling, and need indicators on the occurrence of clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap (e.g., HHI-S score > 8). RESULTS: Among included participants, 953 (14.5%) had an HHI-S score >8. The final model revealed significant associations between predisposing characteristics, enabling resources, need, and HHI-S outcome. Predisposing characteristics and need factors were associated with higher odds of reporting self-perceived hearing handicap (HHI-S score >8) including acculturation as measured by the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.50), female sex (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.27-2.33), and poorer worse ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz PTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03); suggesting that a 5-decibel increase in a person's PTA was consistent with 10% higher odds of a HHI-S score of >8. Greater enabling resources were associated with lower odds of reporting clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap: compared with individuals with income <$10,000/year, the multivariable-adjusted OR among individuals with income $40,000 to $7500/year was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89) and among individuals with income >$75,000/year was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.13-0.59]; p-trend < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest there are associations between predisposing, enabling and need variables consistent with the Aday-Andersen model and self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. The influence of language and culture on perceived hearing loss and associated handicap is complex, and deserves more attention in future studies. Our findings warrant further investigation into understanding the role of language and language access in hearing health care utilization and outcomes, as the current body of literature is small and shows mixed outcomes.

Audiology in the time of COVID-19: practices and opinions of audiologists in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To document changes in audiology practice resulting from COVID-19 restrictions and to assess audiologists' opinions about teleaudiology. DESIGN: A survey consisting of closed-set and open-ended questions that assessed working practices during the COVID-19 restrictions and audiologists' attitudes towards teleaudiology. SAMPLE: About 120 audiologists in the UK recruited via snowball sampling through social media and emails. RESULTS: About 30% of respondents said they had used teleaudiology prior to COVID-19 restrictions; 98% had done at the time of survey completion, and 86% said they would continue to do so even when restrictions are lifted. Reasons for prior non-use of teleaudiology were associated with clinical limitations/needs, available infrastructure and patient preferences. Respondents believe teleaudiology will improve travel, convenience, flexibility and scheduling, that it will have little/no impact on satisfaction and quality of care, but that it will negatively impact personal interactions. Concerns about teleaudiology focussed on communication, inability to conduct some clinical procedures and technology. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents' experience with teleaudiology has generally been positive however improvements to infrastructure and training are necessary, and because many procedures must be conducted in-person, it will always be necessary to have hybrid-care pathways available.

Impacts of face coverings on communication: an indirect impact of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of face coverings on hearing and communication. DESIGN: An online survey consisting of closed-set and open-ended questions distributed within the UK to gain insights into experiences of interactions involving face coverings, and of the impact of face coverings on communication. SAMPLE: Four hundred and sixty members of the general public were recruited via snowball sampling. People with hearing loss were intentionally oversampled to more thoroughly assess the effect of face coverings in this group. RESULTS: With few exceptions, participants reported that face coverings negatively impacted hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker. Impacts were greatest when communicating in medical situations. People with hearing loss were significantly more impacted than those without hearing loss. Face coverings impacted communication content, interpersonal connectedness, and willingness to engage in conversation; they increased anxiety and stress, and made communication fatiguing, frustrating and embarrassing - both as a speaker wearing a face covering, and when listening to someone else who is wearing one. CONCLUSIONS: Face coverings have far-reaching impacts on communication for everyone, but especially for people with hearing loss. These findings illustrate the need for communication-friendly face-coverings, and emphasise the need to be communication-aware when wearing a face covering.

Changing the narrative for hearing health in the broader context of healthy living: a call to action.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the steps necessary to facilitate hearing health care in the context of well-being and healthy living. DESIGN: Common themes among the articles in this special supplement of the International Journal of Audiology were used to identify issues that must be addressed if audiology is to move from being hearing-focussed to taking a holistic perspective of hearing care in the context of healthy aging. These are discussed within the context of other published literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Three needs were identified: (i) Increased interdisciplinary education to raise awareness of the interplay between hearing and health. (ii) Increased emphasis on counselling education in audiology programs so that audiologists are equipped with the knowledge, competence and confidence to provide counselling and emotional support to their patients, beyond care. (iii) Redefinition of therapeutic goal setting and hearing outcomes to include aspects of well-being, so that audiologists can capture and patients realise that that good hearing outcomes can have a direct positive impact on a person's quality of life that extends beyond their improved ability to hear. It was emphasised that each of these needs to be considered within the context of the audiologists' scope of practice and audiologists' well-being.

Identifying the approaches used by audiologists to address the psychosocial needs of their adult clients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the approaches taken by audiologists to address their adult clients' psychosocial needs related to hearing loss. DESIGN: A participatory mixed methods design. Participants generated statements describing the ways in which the psychosocial needs of their adult clients with hearing loss are addressed, and then grouped the statements into themes. Data were obtained using face-to-face and online structured questions. Concept mapping techniques were used to identify key concepts and to map each of the concepts relative to each other. STUDY SAMPLE: An international sample of 65 audiologists. RESULTS: Ninety-three statements were generated and grouped into seven conceptual clusters: Client Empowerment; Use of Strategies and Training to Personalise the Rehabilitation Program; Facilitating Peer and Other Professional Support; Providing Emotional Support; Improving Social Engagement with Technology; Including Communication Partners; and Promoting Client Responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists employ a wide range of approaches in their attempt to address the psychosocial needs associated with hearing loss experienced by their adult clients. The approaches described were mostly informal and provided in a non-standardised way. The majority of approaches described were not evidence-based, despite the availability of several options that are evidence-based, thus highlighting the implementation gap between research and clinical practice.

Audiological approaches to address the psychosocial needs of adults with hearing loss: perceived benefit and likelihood of use.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceived benefit and likely implementation of approaches used by audiologists to address their adult clients' psychosocial needs related to hearing loss. DESIGN: Adults with hearing loss and audiologists completed separate, but related, surveys to rate their perceived benefit and also their likely use of 66 clinical approaches (divided over seven themes) that aim to address psychosocial needs related to hearing loss. STUDY SAMPLE: A sample of 52 Australian adults with hearing loss, and an international sample of 19 audiologists. RESULTS: Overall, participants rated all of the approaches highly on both benefit and likelihood of use; the highest ranked theme was Providing Emotional Support. Cohort comparisons showed that audiologists ranked the approaches significantly higher than did adults with hearing loss. Overall, participants ranked the themes higher on benefit than on the likelihood to use scales. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with hearing loss and audiologists recognise the importance of approaches that address the psychosocial impacts of hearing loss in audiological rehabilitation. However, both groups placed slightly greater value on the internal-based approaches (the clients own emotional response, empowerment, and responsibility), and slightly less emphasis on the external-based approaches (being supported by communication partners, support groups or other health professionals).

Application of Big Data to Support Evidence-Based Public Health Policy Decision-Making for Hearing.

Ideally, public health policies are formulated from scientific data; however, policy-specific data are often unavailable. Big data can generate ecologically-valid, high-quality scientific evidence, and therefore has the potential to change how public health policies are formulated. Here, we discuss the use of big data for developing evidence-based hearing health policies, using data collected and analyzed with a research prototype of a data repository known as EVOTION (EVidence-based management of hearing impairments: public health pOlicy-making based on fusing big data analytics and simulaTION), to illustrate our points. Data in the repository consist of audiometric clinical data, prospective real-world data collected from hearing aids and an app, and responses to questionnaires collected for research purposes. To date, we have used the platform and a synthetic dataset to model the estimated risk of noise-induced hearing loss and have shown novel evidence of ways in which external factors influence hearing aid usage patterns. We contend that this research prototype data repository illustrates the value of using big data for policy-making by providing high-quality evidence that could be used to formulate and evaluate the impact of hearing health care policies.

Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability.

Objective: This study evaluates the content validity (i.e. domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognised procedures and tools. Design: A review of the literature to identify candidate instruments and a synthesis of information including mapping extracted items onto the World Health Organisation's - International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and estimating readability. Study sample: 14 patient-reported questionnaire instruments. Results: In general, item content focussed on body function and on activity limitations and participation restrictions, with less emphasis on environmental and personal factors and with different emphases across instruments. Many items did not clearly map onto any of the WHO-ICF categories (i.e. not coded items ranged from 3.7 to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the sixth-grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula which is appropriate for assessing a non-narrative text. Conclusions: Clinical assessment of hearing disability is only as comprehensive as the items covered by the chosen measurement instrument. Our findings confirmed the diversity of domains covered by hearing disability instruments and gaps in assessment. Some concern is raised about whether the item content is appropriate for those respondents with poor literacy.