No Cover Image

Journal article 1377 views 111 downloads

An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire

Jonathan Arthur, Phillip Jones, Ruth Davies, Slater Julie, Tessa Watts Orcid Logo

Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, Volume: 48, Pages: 27 - 33

Swansea University Author: Tessa Watts Orcid Logo

Abstract

IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome...

Full description

Published in: Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology
Published: North America Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 2017
Online Access: http://www.audrehab.org/jara/201516/Arthur%20et%20al%20-%20final%20v7-%202016.pdf
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa28920
first_indexed 2016-06-15T18:23:45Z
last_indexed 2019-06-05T10:12:45Z
id cronfa28920
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-05-30T14:53:08.6585701</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>28920</id><entry>2016-06-15</entry><title>An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>645eba17f8610ddff17b5022bc7f279c</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-1201-5192</ORCID><firstname>Tessa</firstname><surname>Watts</surname><name>Tessa Watts</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2016-06-15</date><abstract>IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome measures is preferable to an approach that uses one method alone. A dual-stage approach may provide a comprehensive understanding of hearing aid use and help further develop a detailed understanding of some of the problems associated with non-use or under-use.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the relationship of self-reported hearing aid use using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile questionnaire (GHABP; Gatehouse, 1999) to hearing aid data-logging information, and to establish whether the GHABP can be used to accurately measure hearing aid use.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study conducted in Wales, United Kingdom. A total of 119 participants were recruited at their hearing aid follow-up appointments. The length of time between hearing aid fitting and follow-up was variable. With participants&#x2019; consent, data were collected using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile part 2 questionnaire and data-logging information stored in the hearing aid. Correlational analyses were used to assess the relationships between the two measures of hearing aid use.ResultsMean data-logging use was 5.87 hours per day (SD=5.15) and the mean GHABP use was 67.34% (SD=32.98). Both &#x201C;use&#x201D; variables failed a Shapiro Wilks test of normality. There was a strong positive Pearson rho correlation between datalogging use and GHABP use (rs, = .645, p &lt;0.01). Analysis of the GHABP questionnaire revealed that 53 participants stated that they used their hearing aids between 81% and 100% of the time. There were some low levels of use when examining data logging in the context of variable GHABP results.ConclusionsIn participants who present higher GHABP use scores with lower levels of data-logging use, some plausible reasons include: I) Inadvertent overestimation of their use by patients (recall error), 2) The GHABP questionnaire may not be sufficiently sensitive or structured in such a way to effectively measure use. For example, &#x201C;listening in a quiet environment&#x201D; is not captured in a GHABP question, or 3) The reporting of use as a percentage may not be an appropriate measure of use. For this reason, in keeping with Perez and Edmonds (2012), both self-reported measures of use and data-logging should be used together and audiologists are reminded to consider both measures with some level of caution.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology</journal><volume>48</volume><paginationStart>27</paginationStart><paginationEnd>33</paginationEnd><publisher>Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology</publisher><placeOfPublication>North America</placeOfPublication><keywords>Hearing aid use ; data logging, patient reported outcome measures</keywords><publishedDay>19</publishedDay><publishedMonth>10</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2017</publishedYear><publishedDate>2017-10-19</publishedDate><doi/><url>http://www.audrehab.org/jara/201516/Arthur%20et%20al%20-%20final%20v7-%202016.pdf</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2019-05-30T14:53:08.6585701</lastEdited><Created>2016-06-15T16:08:16.3922156</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Health and Social Care - Nursing</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Jonathan</firstname><surname>Arthur</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Phillip</firstname><surname>Jones</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Ruth</firstname><surname>Davies</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Slater</firstname><surname>Julie</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Tessa</firstname><surname>Watts</surname><orcid>0000-0002-1201-5192</orcid><order>5</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0028920-01112017104604.pdf</filename><originalFilename>TessaWatts-finalv7-2016.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2017-11-01T10:46:04.9430000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>601217</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2017-11-01T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2019-05-30T14:53:08.6585701 v2 28920 2016-06-15 An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire 645eba17f8610ddff17b5022bc7f279c 0000-0002-1201-5192 Tessa Watts Tessa Watts true false 2016-06-15 IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome measures is preferable to an approach that uses one method alone. A dual-stage approach may provide a comprehensive understanding of hearing aid use and help further develop a detailed understanding of some of the problems associated with non-use or under-use.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the relationship of self-reported hearing aid use using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile questionnaire (GHABP; Gatehouse, 1999) to hearing aid data-logging information, and to establish whether the GHABP can be used to accurately measure hearing aid use.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study conducted in Wales, United Kingdom. A total of 119 participants were recruited at their hearing aid follow-up appointments. The length of time between hearing aid fitting and follow-up was variable. With participants’ consent, data were collected using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile part 2 questionnaire and data-logging information stored in the hearing aid. Correlational analyses were used to assess the relationships between the two measures of hearing aid use.ResultsMean data-logging use was 5.87 hours per day (SD=5.15) and the mean GHABP use was 67.34% (SD=32.98). Both “use” variables failed a Shapiro Wilks test of normality. There was a strong positive Pearson rho correlation between datalogging use and GHABP use (rs, = .645, p <0.01). Analysis of the GHABP questionnaire revealed that 53 participants stated that they used their hearing aids between 81% and 100% of the time. There were some low levels of use when examining data logging in the context of variable GHABP results.ConclusionsIn participants who present higher GHABP use scores with lower levels of data-logging use, some plausible reasons include: I) Inadvertent overestimation of their use by patients (recall error), 2) The GHABP questionnaire may not be sufficiently sensitive or structured in such a way to effectively measure use. For example, “listening in a quiet environment” is not captured in a GHABP question, or 3) The reporting of use as a percentage may not be an appropriate measure of use. For this reason, in keeping with Perez and Edmonds (2012), both self-reported measures of use and data-logging should be used together and audiologists are reminded to consider both measures with some level of caution. Journal Article Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 48 27 33 Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology North America Hearing aid use ; data logging, patient reported outcome measures 19 10 2017 2017-10-19 http://www.audrehab.org/jara/201516/Arthur%20et%20al%20-%20final%20v7-%202016.pdf COLLEGE NANME COLLEGE CODE Swansea University 2019-05-30T14:53:08.6585701 2016-06-15T16:08:16.3922156 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Health and Social Care - Nursing Jonathan Arthur 1 Phillip Jones 2 Ruth Davies 3 Slater Julie 4 Tessa Watts 0000-0002-1201-5192 5 0028920-01112017104604.pdf TessaWatts-finalv7-2016.pdf 2017-11-01T10:46:04.9430000 Output 601217 application/pdf Version of Record true 2017-11-01T00:00:00.0000000 true eng
title An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
spellingShingle An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
Tessa Watts
title_short An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
title_full An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
title_fullStr An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
title_sort An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
author_id_str_mv 645eba17f8610ddff17b5022bc7f279c
author_id_fullname_str_mv 645eba17f8610ddff17b5022bc7f279c_***_Tessa Watts
author Tessa Watts
author2 Jonathan Arthur
Phillip Jones
Ruth Davies
Slater Julie
Tessa Watts
format Journal article
container_title Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology
container_volume 48
container_start_page 27
publishDate 2017
institution Swansea University
publisher Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Health and Social Care - Nursing{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Health and Social Care - Nursing
url http://www.audrehab.org/jara/201516/Arthur%20et%20al%20-%20final%20v7-%202016.pdf
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome measures is preferable to an approach that uses one method alone. A dual-stage approach may provide a comprehensive understanding of hearing aid use and help further develop a detailed understanding of some of the problems associated with non-use or under-use.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the relationship of self-reported hearing aid use using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile questionnaire (GHABP; Gatehouse, 1999) to hearing aid data-logging information, and to establish whether the GHABP can be used to accurately measure hearing aid use.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study conducted in Wales, United Kingdom. A total of 119 participants were recruited at their hearing aid follow-up appointments. The length of time between hearing aid fitting and follow-up was variable. With participants’ consent, data were collected using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile part 2 questionnaire and data-logging information stored in the hearing aid. Correlational analyses were used to assess the relationships between the two measures of hearing aid use.ResultsMean data-logging use was 5.87 hours per day (SD=5.15) and the mean GHABP use was 67.34% (SD=32.98). Both “use” variables failed a Shapiro Wilks test of normality. There was a strong positive Pearson rho correlation between datalogging use and GHABP use (rs, = .645, p <0.01). Analysis of the GHABP questionnaire revealed that 53 participants stated that they used their hearing aids between 81% and 100% of the time. There were some low levels of use when examining data logging in the context of variable GHABP results.ConclusionsIn participants who present higher GHABP use scores with lower levels of data-logging use, some plausible reasons include: I) Inadvertent overestimation of their use by patients (recall error), 2) The GHABP questionnaire may not be sufficiently sensitive or structured in such a way to effectively measure use. For example, “listening in a quiet environment” is not captured in a GHABP question, or 3) The reporting of use as a percentage may not be an appropriate measure of use. For this reason, in keeping with Perez and Edmonds (2012), both self-reported measures of use and data-logging should be used together and audiologists are reminded to consider both measures with some level of caution.
published_date 2017-10-19T13:02:57Z
_version_ 1821410672180723712
score 10.958922

Similar Items