Pediatric Audiology Report: Assessment and Revision of an Audiology Report Written to Parents of Children With Hearing Impairment

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction: Content Validity and Readability

PURPOSE

Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available to measure hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. It is unclear to what extent currently available PROMs on hearing aid outcomes, often developed decades ago, meet current guidelines for good content validity and readability. This study evaluated the content validity and readability of PROMs that focus on perceived hearing aid benefit and/or satisfaction.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted to identify eligible instruments. Content validity evaluation included mapping extracted questionnaire items to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. In addition, study design in content validity methodology was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments study design checklist for PROM instruments. Readability was estimated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook measure.

RESULTS

Thirteen questionnaires were identified and evaluated. Item content focused primarily on the components of environmental factors as well as activity limitations and participation restrictions with less emphasis on body functions and personal factors. The content validity methodology analysis revealed an underuse or lack of reporting of a qualitative methodology in assessing patient and professional perspectives. All the included questionnaires exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level.

CONCLUSIONS

The categories covered by hearing aid PROMs vary considerably, with no single instrument comprehensively covering all the key ICF components. Future development of hearing aid outcome measures should consider a mixed methodology approach for improved content validity and ensure an appropriate reading level.

Modeling Lost to Intervention in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention: A Modified eDelphi Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a functional model of the drivers behind why families may decline early intervention services following the identification of a child as D/deaf or hard of hearing.

METHOD

This model was developed using a modified eDelphi method. Invited experts (N = 155) were provided proposed models of why families may decline early intervention services in accordance with current literature. In the first phase of feedback, participants (n = 23) provided changes they would make to the model to be more in line with their perceptions of lost to intervention. These changes were implemented, and a second phase of feedback with participants (n = 25) moved to accept the model as presented.

RESULTS

Agreement was reached on five main barriers to early intervention access for children who have been identified as D/deaf or hard of hearing (family experience, family culture, perceived vulnerability, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers). Each of these main barriers has associated examples of how they may manifest across different early intervention programs and situations.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first theoretical model of why loss to intervention happens within early hearing detection and intervention. Having a model provides the opportunity for future work to implement novel approaches to support families during the early intervention enrollment process.

Quality, Readability, and Suitability of Hearing Health-Related Materials: A Descriptive Review

Objectives The objective of this descriptive review was to determine the quality, readability, and suitability of ear and hearing health information and materials for patients and their significant others. Method A literature search was conducted between August 2018 and April 2019 in the databases CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, and PsychInfo. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to shortlist studies. Data regarding quality, suitability, and readability were extracted from the included studies. Data were assessed qualitatively. Results There were 34 studies included in this review. Of those, eight examined quality, 33 assessed readability, and four investigated the suitability of materials. The range of materials assessed included diagnostic reports, patient education materials (PEMs), patient-reported outcome measures, and websites. Quality elements were examined in studies focusing on website information. Findings indicated that most websites were of poor quality. Suitability was examined in studies focusing on PEMs such as hearing aid user guides. Findings indicated that most of the existing materials were not suitable for the intended populations. The reading grade level of information across all four categories was found to be higher than the recommended fifth or sixth reading grade level for health-related materials. Revisions of some diagnostic reports and PEMs showed that improvements are possible. Conclusions This review suggests that ear- and hearing-related materials generally have lower quality and suitability with higher readability (more difficult to read). Development of materials that are suitable, of high quality, and at the appropriate readability levels is required to improve accessibility of ear- and hearing-related materials.

Interpretability of the audiogram by audiologists and physician non-specialists

OBJECTIVE

The audiogram is frequently used by hearing specialists communicate test results to non-specialists, such as physicians. However, it relies on uncommon terminology and interpreting unusual graphical elements to extract information. In this study, we examine whether the audiogram can be accurately interpreted by specialists and non-specialists.

DESIGN

We used an online questionnaire to assess the interpretability of an audiogram by audiologists and primary-care physicians. Participants viewed a sample audiogram and submitted their answers via an online survey system.

STUDY SAMPLE

We recruited actively practicing primary care physicians (n = 100) and actively practicing audiologists (n = 67). We only accepted respondents from the United States.

RESULTS

The audiogram was not easily interpreted by physicians, with a median score of 4/9. Fewer than 25% could accurately report a threshold correctly. Audiologists were more accurate than physicians (median score 7/9, Wilcoxon two-sample p < 0.001, r = 0.648).

CONCLUSIONS

The audiogram is difficult for non-specialists to interpret. Clinicians are advised to supplement or supplant the audiogram in interprofessional communication. The development of tools to facilitate interprofessional communication between audiologists and physicians could have positive effects on physician awareness of hearing loss, and even downstream influences on patient behaviour and outcomes.

Exploring how parents of children with unilateral hearing loss make habilitation decisions: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to explore the decision making needs of parents managing the hearing and communication needs of children with unilateral hearing loss.

DESIGN

An inductive, qualitative method was used. The data were analysed using a constant comparative approach, consistent with Grounded Theory method.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty one families participated in interviews yielding data on twenty two children. Each of these families had at least one child with unilateral hearing loss. The age range of the children varied from four months to sixteen years old. All parents were English speaking and received care from National Health Service Audiology departments across the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Parents valued professionals' opinions, but information provision was inconsistent. As their children mature, parents increasingly valued their child's input. Parent-child discussions focussed on how different management strategies fit their child's preferences. Parents were proactive in obtaining professional advice, and integrating this with their own iterative assessment of their child's performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision making is an iterative process. Parents make nuanced decisions which aim to preserve a sense of what is normal for them. Clinicians need to recognise the parental view, including where it may contrast with a medicalised or clinical view.

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the readability of published patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed for use in adult audiologic rehabilitation. The readability results were compared with the readability levels recommended for health information by health literacy experts.

METHOD

Reading grade levels were calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula (Flesch, 1948), Gunning Fog Index (Gunning, 1952), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (McLaughlin, 1969), and FORCAST (Caylor, Sticht, Fox, & Ford, 1973) readability formulas for 10 published PROMs. Descriptive statistics were computed across the different PROM sections: instructions, items, response scale, and overall contents of the measure directed toward respondents.

RESULTS

The majority of the PROM sections exceeded the 6th grade reading level recommended by health literacy experts, regardless of the formula applied. All PROM sections exceeded the 6th grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula, the most appropriate readability formula for use with a nonnarrative text format, such as PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

When developing or reevaluating PROMs designed for use in adult audiologic rehabilitation, researchers should consider ways to improve the readability of their measure, as poor readability may affect the validity of the empirical data collected using the PROM. Additionally, the adequate readability of audiologic PROMs is required if patient/family-centered care values are to be adhered to within the field of adult audiologic rehabilitation.

Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training Workshop: Current Understanding of Hearing Loss and Emotion Perception and Priorities for Future Research

The question of how hearing loss and hearing rehabilitation affect patients' momentary emotional experiences is one that has received little attention but has considerable potential to affect patients' psychosocial function. This article is a product from the Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training workshop, which was convened to develop a consensus document describing research on emotion perception relevant for hearing research. This article outlines conceptual frameworks for the investigation of emotion in hearing research; available subjective, objective, neurophysiologic, and peripheral physiologic data acquisition research methods; the effects of age and hearing loss on emotion perception; potential rehabilitation strategies; priorities for future research; and implications for clinical audiologic rehabilitation. More broadly, this article aims to increase awareness about emotion perception research in audiology and to stimulate additional research on the topic.