Search

The aim of the study was to examine the mental well-being of audiologists in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, between 23 June and 13 August 2020. A self-report survey included screening measures for psychological distress (PHQ-4: anxiety and depression) and loneliness (UCLA-3). 239 audiologists from around the world. The prevalence of psychological distress was 12.1% (subscales for anxiety 16.3% and depression 10.4%), and loneliness 32.2%. Depression and loneliness were higher in those participants self-reporting perceived job insecurity, with psychological distress (anxiety and depression) higher in those from South Africa. Accessibility to Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) appears to be a protective factor. Well-being interventions, such as EAPS, are needed to support audiologists during challenging times like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: The current study evaluates the content validity (i.e., domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognizedprocedures 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 Organization’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 focused 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 WHOICF categories (i.e., not coded items ranged from 3.7% to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the 6th 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.