Search

Background: Often considered an "invisible disability", hearing loss is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases and the third leading cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Hearing loss has substantial impacts on communication, psychological wellbeing, social connectedness, cognition, quality of life, and economic independence. The Hearing impairment in Adults: a Longitudinal Outcomes Study (HALOS) aims to evaluate the: (1) impacts of hearing devices (hearing aids and/or cochlear implants), (2) differences in timing of these interventions and in long-term outcomes between hearing aid and cochlear implant users, and (3) cost-effectiveness of early intervention for adult-onset hearing loss among hearing device users. Materials and methods: HALOS is a mixed-methods study collecting cross-sectional and longitudinal data on health and social outcomes from 908 hearing aid and/or cochlear implant users aged ≥40 years, recruited from hearing service providers across Australia. The quantitative component will involve an online survey at baseline (time of recruitment), 24-months, and 48-months and will collect audiological, health, psychosocial, functional and employment outcomes using validated instruments. The qualitative component will be conducted in a subset of participants at baseline and involve semi-structured interviews to understand the patient journey and perspectives on the Australian hearing service model. Ethics: This study has been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 11262) and Southern Adelaide Local Health Network (ID: LNR/22/SAC/88). Dissemination of results: Study findings will be disseminated to participants via a one-page summary, and to the public through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) registration number: ACTRN12622000752763. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Is national healthcare performance associated with country-level characteristics, and if so what are the implications for international health policy? Methods and findings: We compared Hofstede's six cultural dimensions against relative health systems performance of 35 countries. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified best-matched groupings of countries. Performance was measured by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) Health at a Glance indicators data framework (five dimensions with 57 indicators) and the United Nations' (UNs') Sustainability Development Goals (SDG) data set (15 indicators). Three country clusters emerged: Collective-Pyramidal (n = 9: comprising Slovak Republic, Mexico, Poland, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, Chile, and Slovenia); Collaborative-Networked (n = 12: UK, Canada, Australia, USA, Ireland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden); and Orderly-Future Orientated (n = 14: Korea, Estonia, Latvia, Austria, Israel, Japan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland). The Collaborative-Networked cluster had significantly better performing health systems measured by both the Health at a Glance and SDG performance data, followed by the Orderly-Future Orientated cluster, followed by the Collective-Pyramidal cluster. The Collaborative-Networked Cluster was characterized by low power distance (e.g., greater levels of equity), low uncertainty avoidance (e.g., toleration of others' opinions), individualism (e.g., self-reliance) and indulgence (e.g., drives and norms to enjoy life and have fun). Conclusions: National cultures are associated with healthcare performance on two key international measures. In national and international efforts to improve health system performance, cultural characteristics play an important role. This information may be of value to regulators, policymakers, researchers and clinicians examining the practical impact of culture on healthcare performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]