Login
Communauté Vinci
Extérieur
Si votre nom d'utilisateur ne se termine pas par @vinci.be ou @student.vinci.be, utilisez le formulaire ci-dessous pour accéder à votre compte de lecteur.
Titre : | Psychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: An overview of the relevant literature (2021) |
Auteurs : | William E. Hodgetts ; Tracy Wright ; James R. Tysome ; Ravi Sockalingam ; Peter Monksfield ; Brian J. McKinnon ; Martin L. Johansson ; Penny R. Hill-Feltham ; Amberley Ostevik |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | International Journal of Audiology IJA (Vol. 60, n°9, Septembre 2021) |
Article en page(s) : | p. 641-649 |
Note générale : | https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2021.1872805 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci Conduction osseuse ; Déficience auditive ; Traitement auditif |
Résumé : |
Objective
To identify the psychosocial assessments utilized with individuals with conductive and/or mixed hearing loss as part of a broader effort by the Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (AURONET) group to develop a core set of patient-centred outcome measures. Design A review of articles published between 2006 and 2016 was completed. Included studies had more than three adult participants, were available in English, and reported a psychosocial outcome from any treatment of mixed and/or conductive hearing loss. Study sample Sixty-six articles from seven databases. Results Sixty-six articles met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Within this set, 15 unique psychosocial or patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) were identified, with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) being the most frequently dispensed. Five of the fifteen were only administered in one study. In-house questionnaires (IHQs) were reported in 19 articles. Conclusions Only 66 (22%) of the 300 articles with outcomes contained a PRO. Some of the mostly frequently employed PROs (e.g., APHAB) were judged to include only social items and no psychological items. Lack of PRO standardization and the use of IHQs make psychosocial comparisons across treatments in this population difficult for patients, clinicians and stakeholders. |
Accès : | Contactez la bibliothèque d'Ixelles si le lien vers la ressource électronique ne fonctionne plus |
Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
En ligne : | https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14992027.2021.1872805 |