Search

Objective: Hearing impairment may lead to an increased need to recover from fatigue and distress after a day of work. Also, hearing impairment may negatively affect the balance between workload and control over it (job demand and job control). The uptake of hearing solutions may have a positive effect on these outcomes. We aimed to assess the longitudinal relationship between change in speech recognition in noise and changes in need for recovery after work and job demand and job control, and the influence of hearing solutions on these relationships over a period of 5 years. Research questions (RQs) were as follows: (1) Is a 5-year change in speech recognition in noise associated with a change in need for recovery after work over that same 5-year period?; (2) Is a 5-year change in speech recognition in noise associated with a change in job demand and job control over that same 5-year period?; (3) What is the effect of hearing solution uptake in the 5-year period on the change in these outcomes in that same 5-year period? Method: Data of the Netherlands Longitudinal Study on Hearing, collected between 2006 and January 2019, were divided into two 5-year follow-up intervals: T0 (baseline) to T1 (5-year follow-up) and T1 (5-year follow-up) to T2 (10-year follow-up). An online digit-triplet in noise test was used to assess speech recognition in noise. Online questionnaires on demographic, socioeconomic, and work-related characteristics were administered. For RQ1-RQ2, the study sample included adults working ≥12 hours per week, with at least two consecutive measurements (n = 783). For RQ3, employees who had not yet obtained hearing solutions at baseline, but who would be eligible based on a speech reception threshold in noise ≥ -5.5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), were included (n = 147). Longitudinal linear regression analyses using mixed models were performed to assess RQ1-RQ3. Results: After adjusting for baseline values, 5-year change in speech recognition in noise showed a statistically significant association with 5-year change in need for recovery. A worsening of 1 dB SNR in speech recognition in noise in an individual was associated with an increase of 0.72 units in need for recovery (scale range 0 to 100). A 5-year change in speech recognition in noise was not significantly associated with a 5-year change in job demand or job control. The uptake of hearing solutions in the 5-year period did not have a significant effect on change in need for recovery in that same 5-year period. Conclusion: The significant longitudinal association between 5-year worsening in speech recognition in noise and increase in need for recovery over the same time period strengthens the evidence for the importance of early detection of a worsening in speech recognition in noise to identify employees with an increase in need for recovery. The absence of an effect of the uptake of a hearing solution on need for recovery indicates that additional alternative interventions may be needed to foster beneficial use of hearing solutions as well as to mitigate the increased need for recovery in case of worsening speech recognition in noise.

Objective: To identify predictors of the 5-year uptake of hearing aids (HAs) and hearing assistive technology (HAT) in a sample of Dutch employees eligible for HAs and/or HAT. The potential predictors included demographic factors (age, sex, marital status, and living situation), education, hearing factors (ability to recognize speech in noise and self-reported hearing disability), distress, self-efficacy, and work-related factors (job demand, job control, and need for recovery). Design: Five-year follow-up data of the Netherlands Longitudinal Study on Hearing (NL-SH) collected until January 2019 were included. An online digit-triplet in noise test, the National Hearing Test (NHT), was used to assess speech-recognition-in-noise ability. In addition, online questionnaires on demographic, socioeconomic, self-reported hearing disability, health, and work-related characteristics were administered. Adults who worked over 12 hours per week, who had not yet taken up HAs or HAT, but who would be eligible for HAs/HAT based on their NHT score (insufficient or poor hearing ability), were included in the study. The 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT was defined as a dichotomous variable of self-reported HA/HAT use reported 5 years later. Generalized Estimating Equations analyses were performed to analyze the associations between potential predicting factors and the 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT, taking into account the repeated measurements of the predicting factors and the 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT. Results: Data of 218 participants were included. The cumulative incidence of the 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT was 15 to 33%, of which 52 employees took up HAs and 11 employees took up HAT. Married participants had increased odds for 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT compared with unmarried participants (odds ratio [OR] = 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 4.35). Higher self-reported hearing disability (per one unit, scale range 0 to 74) was associated with increased odds for 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.07). Job demand showed a significant interaction with sex (p = 0.002), and therefore, stratified analyses were performed. In male participants, participants with higher job demand scores (per one unit, scale range 12 to 48) had increased odds for 5-year uptake of HAs/HAT (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.35). No difference was seen in females. Conclusion: This study confirms that factors predicting the uptake of HAs/HAT in the general or older populations, including marital status and self-reported hearing disability, also extend to the working population. The identification of job demand as a predictor of the uptake of HAs/HAT (in males only) was a novel finding. It demonstrates the importance of considering work-related factors in aural rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Core Sets for Hearing Loss (CSHL) consists of short lists of categories from the entire ICF classification that are thought to be the most relevant for describing the functioning of persons with hearing loss. A comprehensive intake that covers all factors included in the ICF CSHL holds the promise of developing a tailored treatment plan that fully complements the patient's needs. The Comprehensive CSHL contains 117 categories and serves as a guide for multiprofessional, comprehensive assessment. The Brief CSHL includes 27 of the 117 categories and represents the minimal spectrum of functioning of persons with HL for single-discipline encounters or clinical trials. The authors first sought to benchmark the extent to which Audiologist (AUD) and Otorhinolaryngologist (ORL) discipline-specific intake documentation, as well as Mayo Clinic's multidisciplinary intake documentation, captures ICF CSHL categories. DESIGN: A retrospective study design including 168 patient records from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Audiology of Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Anonymized intake documentation forms and reports were selected from patient records filed between January 2016 and May 2017. Data were extracted from the intake documentation forms and reports and linked to ICF categories using pre-established linking rules. "Overlap," defined as the percentage of ICF CSHL categories represented in the intake documentation, was calculated across document types. In addition, extra non-ICF CSHL categories (ICF categories that are not part of the CSHL) and extra constructs (constructs that are not part of the ICF classification) found in the patient records were described. RESULTS: The total overlap of multidisciplinary intake documentation with ICF CSHL categories was 100% for the Brief CSHL and 50% for the Comprehensive CSHL. Brief CSHL overlap for discipline-specific documentation fell short at 70% for both AUD and ORL. Important extra non-ICF CSHL categories were identified and included "sleep function" and "motor-related functions and activities," which mostly were reported in relation to tinnitus and vestibular disorders. CONCLUSION: The multidisciplinary intake documentation of Mayo Clinic showed 100% overlap with the Brief CSHL, while important areas of nonoverlap were identified in AUD- and ORL-specific reports. The ICF CSHL provides a framework for describing each hearing-impaired individual's unique capabilities and needs in ways currently not documented by audiological and otological evaluations, potentially setting the stage for more effective individualized patient care. Efforts to further validate the ICF CSHL may require the involvement of multidisciplinary institutions with commonly shared electronic health records to adequately capture the breath of the ICF CSHL.

OBJECTIVES The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets for Hearing Loss (HL) were developed to serve as a standard for the assessment and reporting of the functioning and health of patients with HL. The aim of the present study was to compare the content of the intake documentation currently used in secondary and tertiary hearing care settings in the Netherlands with the content of the ICF Core Sets for HL. Research questions were (1) to what extent are the ICF Core Sets for HL represented in the Dutch Otology and Audiology intake documentation? (2) are there any extra ICF categories expressed in the intake documentation that are currently not part of the ICF Core Sets for HL, or constructs expressed that are not part of the ICF? DESIGN Multicenter patient record study including 176 adult patients from two secondary, and two tertiary hearing care settings. The intake documentation was selected from anonymized patient records. The content was linked to the appropriate ICF category from the whole ICF classification using established linking rules. The extent to which the ICF Core Sets for HL were represented in the intake documentation was determined by assessing the overlap between the ICF categories in the Core Sets and the list of unique ICF categories extracted from the intake documentation. Any extra constructs that were expressed in the intake documentation but are not part of the Core Sets were described as well, differentiating between ICF categories that are not part of the Core Sets and constructs that are not part of the ICF classification. RESULTS In total, otology and audiology intake documentation represented 24 of the 27 Brief ICF Core Set categories (i.e., 89%), and 60 of the 117 Comprehensive ICF Core Set categories (i.e., 51%). Various ICF Core Sets categories were not represented, including higher mental functions (Body Functions), civic life aspects (Activities and Participation), and support and attitudes of family (Environmental Factors). One extra ICF category emerged from the intake documentation that is currently not included in the Core Sets: sleep functions. Various Personal Factors emerged from the intake documentation that are currently not defined in the ICF classification. CONCLUSIONS The results showed substantial overlap between the ICF Core Sets for HL and the intake documentation of otology and audiology, but also revealed areas of nonoverlap. These findings contribute to the evaluation of the content validity of the Core Sets. The overlap can be viewed as supportive of the Core Sets' content validity. The nonoverlap in Core Sets categories indicates that current Dutch intake procedures may not cover all aspects relevant to patients with ear/hearing problems. The identification of extra constructs suggests that the Core Sets may not include all areas of functioning that are relevant to Dutch Otology and Audiology patients. Consideration of incorporating both aspects into future intake practice deserves attention. Operationalization of the ICF Core Sets categories, including the extra constructs identified in this study, into a practical and integral intake instrument seems an important next step.

Purpose To develop a comprehensive, conceptual model detailing the aspects of a child’s life (

The authors are developing an intake tool based on the Brief International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health Core Set for Hearing Loss, by operationalizing its categories into a Patient Reported Outcome Measure. This study was aimed at identifying enablers and barriers to using this tool as perceived by hearing health professionals (HHPs) and patients. Focus groups and interviews were held with HHPs (ENT surgeons, N = 14; audiologists, N = 8) and patients (N = 18). Interview questions were based on the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model. Using the COM-B model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), transcript fragments were divided into meaning units, which were then categorized into capability-, opportunity- and motivation-related barriers and enablers. These were further specified into TDF domains. HHP barriers included: lack of time to use the tool (O); and fear of being made responsible for addressing any emerging problems, which may be outside the expertise of the HHP (M). Enablers included integration of the tool in the electronic patient record (O); opportunity for the patient to be better prepared for the intake visit (M); and provision of a complete picture of the patient's functioning via the tool (M). Patient' barriers included fear of losing personal contact with the HHP (M); and fear that use of the tool might negatively affect conversations with the HHP (M). Enablers included knowledge on the aim and relevance of the tool (C); expected better self-preparation (M); and a more focused intake (M). These findings suggest that an intervention is needed to enhance HHPs' knowledge, skills and motivation regarding the relevance and the clinical usefulness of the tool. Providing clear and specific information on the purpose of the tool can also enhance patient motivation. For both HHPs and patients, opportunities relating to the (digital) administration and the design of the tool provide additional targets for successful implementation.