Interpretability of the audiogram by audiologists and physician non-specialists

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.

Easy as 1-2-3: Development and Evaluation of a Simple yet Valid Audiogram-Classification System

Almost since the inception of the modern-day electroacoustic audiometer a century ago the results of pure-tone audiometry have been characterized by an audiogram. For almost as many years, clinicians and researchers have sought ways to distill the volume and complexity of information on the audiogram. Commonly used approaches have made use of pure-tone averages (PTAs) for various frequency ranges with the PTA for 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz (PTA4) being the most widely used for the categorization of hearing loss severity. Here, a three-digit triad is proposed as a single-number summary of not only the severity, but also the configuration and bilateral symmetry of the hearing loss. Each digit in the triad ranges from 0 to 9, increasing as the level of the pure-tone hearing threshold level (HTL) increases from a range of optimal hearing (< 10 dB Hearing Level; HL) to complete hearing loss (≥ 90 dB HL). Each digit also represents a different frequency region of the audiogram proceeding from left to right as: (Low, L) PTA for 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz; (Center, C) PTA for 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz; and (High, H) HTL at 8000 Hz. This LCH Triad audiogram-classification system is evaluated using a large United States (U.S.) national dataset (N = 8,795) from adults 20 to 80 + years of age and two large clinical datasets totaling 8,254 adults covering a similar age range. Its ability to capture variations in hearing function was found to be superior to that of the widely used PTA4.

Satisfaction with hearing assessment feedback using the My Hearing Explained tool: client and audiologist perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To determine the perceived satisfaction and understanding of hearing assessment feedback, using the Ida My Hearing Explained Tool (IMHET), compared to the standard audiogram reported by adult clients and audiologists.

DESIGN

This study is a mixed-method design comparing clients and audiologists' perceptions through a single-blinded, randomised control trial and focus group discussions. After using either the audiogram or IMHET for feedback, clients and audiologists completed the adapted Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ).

STUDY SAMPLE

During client's initial audiological consultations, audiologists provided hearing assessment feedback (Total = 51) using the IMHET or audiogram. Twenty-seven clients and seven audiologists participated in focus groups, and/or open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Satisfaction was not significantly different (p > 0.05) between the IMHET (76.18; SD: 2.66) or audiogram (75.63; SD: 4.73) for the overall PSQ scores reported by clients and audiologists. Two shared main themes, understanding and satisfaction, were identified for both tools from the focus groups and open-ended questions. A third main theme, recommendations, was identified only for the IMHET.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMHET is a valuable resource for clients during hearing assessment feedback. Audiologists recommend that the audiogram be used as a supplement when using the IMHET to provide feedback.

Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery

Persistent underutilization of cochlear implants (CIs) in the United States is in part a reflection of a lack of hearing health knowledge and the complexities of care delivery in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. An evaluation of the patient experience through the CI health care delivery process systematically exposes barriers that must be overcome to undergo treatment for moderate-to-severe hearing loss. This review analyzes patient-facing obstacles including diagnosis of hearing loss, CI candidate identification and referral to surgeon, CI evaluation and candidacy criteria interpretation, and lastly CI surgery and rehabilitation. Pervasive throughout the process are several themes which demand attention in addressing inequities in hearing health disparities in the United States.