Search

Purpose: Untreated hearing loss is a significant public health issue affecting the quality of life of millions of Americans. Barriers to treatment invite novel and innovation solutions, but as these solutions create new treatment delivery models, they also may--purposefully or accidentally--challenge the values of the field. Method: Value-sensitive design methodology is used in this study to identify the values in current hearing health care service delivery. We performed qualitative content analysis of questionnaires, clinical practice guidelines, and professional ethics documents that represent the intended and enacted values in audiology. Results: The result is a comprehensive list of values that can be used as a structured codebook for systematic textual analysis of materials representing current best practices in the provision of hearing health care services. A secondary result is an analysis of the relative importance of values in audiology, inferred from the frequency of references to each value. Conclusions: Subjective benefit, professional duties, and self-efficacy were the core values identified in the current provision of audiologic care, and these values should be central to considerations for new hearing health care models and technologies.

Objectives: Previous research documented the values of audiology through a qualitative content analysis of documents representing traditional, best-practice hearing health care. The primary objective of this study was to validate the existing list of audiology values. Through a nationwide survey, this study aimed to elicit the values of practicing audiologists, with a specific focus on the prescription and dispensing of amplification devices, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their priorities. Additionally, this study sought to identify any values missing from the original list and determine the rank order importance of these values, comparing this to the prioritization of values found in best-practice audiology documents. This comparison aimed to assess the alignment of recommended guidelines and real-world practices in hearing health care. Design: An online survey was distributed to audiologists to elicit the prioritization of values from hearing health care providers. Participants were tasked with sorting and ranking 18 items, each representing a specific value in hearing health care, based on importance. Respondents were encouraged to suggest and rank the importance of additional values not included in the list. Audiologists were recruited from professional association mailing lists and direct contact. Respondent demographics were representative of U.S. audiologists. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret values suggested by audiologists. Kendall's rank distance test was used to compare values prioritization between audiologists and best-practice audiology documents. Results: After filtering out incomplete or disqualifying responses, data from 289 audiologists across 46 states were analyzed. Additional values suggested by respondents aligned with existing values from best-practice documents; thus, no new values were added as a result of this study. A ranked list of values based on mean order of importance was elicited from U.S.-based audiologists. There was substantial agreement between survey results and the rank order of values found in best-practice audiology documents. A demographic subgroup analysis revealed a broad agreement among audiologists in the rank order of values. Conclusions: This study validated a comprehensive list of values in audiology and identified the rank order of values among a nationally representative sample of audiologists. The findings provide a foundation for future investigations into how these values influence decision-making processes for individuals with hearing difficulty. Addressing values conflicts as potential barriers to hearing health care usage can lead to solutions aligned with values of specific populations, ultimately improving the adoption and effectiveness of hearing health care interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]