Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOstevik, Amberley V
dc.contributor.authorHill-Feltham, Penny
dc.contributor.authorJohansson, Martin L
dc.contributor.authorMcKinnon, Brian J
dc.contributor.authorMonksfield, Peter
dc.contributor.authorSockalingam, Ravi
dc.contributor.authorTysome, James R
dc.contributor.authorWright, Tracy
dc.contributor.authorHodgetts, William E
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-31T12:17:10Z
dc.date.available2024-10-31T12:17:10Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-22
dc.identifier.citationOstevik AV, Hill-Feltham P, Johansson ML, McKinnon BJ, Monksfield P, Sockalingam R, Tysome JR, Wright T, Hodgetts WE. Psychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: An overview of the relevant literature. Int J Audiol. 2021 Sep;60(9):641-649. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2021.1872805. Epub 2021 Feb 22.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1499-2027
dc.identifier.eissn1708-8186
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14992027.2021.1872805
dc.identifier.pmid33612075
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/6306
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherInforma Healthcareen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.tandfonline.com/journals/iija20en_US
dc.subjectSociologyen_US
dc.subjectPsychologyen_US
dc.subjectEar, Nose & Throaten_US
dc.titlePsychosocial outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: an overview of the relevant literatureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.source.journaltitleInternational Journal of Audiologyen_US
dc.source.volume60
dc.source.issue9
dc.source.beginpage641
dc.source.endpage649
dc.source.countryEngland
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorMonksfield, Peter
dc.contributor.trustauthorWright, Tracy
dc.contributor.departmentEar Nose and Throaten_US
dc.contributor.departmentAudiology Centreen_US
dc.contributor.roleAdditional Clinical Servicesen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Alberta; Central Manchester University Hospitals; University of Gothenburg; Oticon Medical; Sweden; Drexel University; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Oticon Medical, Texas; University of Cambridge; Cambridge University Hospitals; Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicineen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record