Hearing Health Care Utilization following Automated Hearing Screening

被引:7
|
作者
Folmer, Robert L. [1 ,2 ]
Saunders, Gabrielle H. [1 ,3 ]
Vachhani, Jay J. [1 ]
Margolis, Robert H. [4 ]
Saly, George [4 ]
Yueh, Bevan [5 ]
McArdle, Rachel A. [6 ]
Feth, Lawrence L. [7 ]
Roup, Christina M. [7 ]
Feeney, M. Patrick [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] VA Portland Med Ctr, VA Natl Ctr Rehabil Auditory Res, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Otolaryngol, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[3] Univ Manchester, Manchester Ctr Audiol & Deafness, Sch Hlth Sci, Manchester, Lancs, England
[4] Audiol Inc, Arden Hills, MN USA
[5] Univ Minnesota, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Minneapolis, MN USA
[6] Vet Hlth Adm, Off Patient Care Serv, Washington, DC USA
[7] Ohio State Univ, Dept Speech & Hearing Sci, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
hearing loss; automated hearing screening; hearing health care; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HANDICAP INVENTORY; OLDER-ADULTS; IMPAIRMENT; PEOPLE; MODEL; TELEPHONE; HELP;
D O I
10.1055/s-0041-1723041
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Background The study examined follow-up rates for pursuing hearing health care (HHC) 6 to 8 months after participants self-administered one of three hearing screening methods: an automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS), a four-frequency pure-tone screener (FFS), or a digits-in-noise test (DIN), with and without the presentation of a 2-minute educational video about hearing. Purpose The study aims to determine if the type of self-administered hearing screening method (with or without an educational video) affects HHC follow-up rates. Research Design The study is a randomized controlled trial of three automated hearing screening methods, plus control group, with and without an educational video. The control group completed questionnaires and provided follow-up data but did not undergo a hearing screening test. Study Sample The study sample includes 1,665 participants (mean age 50.8 years; 935 males) at two VA Medical Centers and at university and community centers in Portland, OR; Bay Pines, FL; Minneapolis, MN; Mauston, WI; and Columbus, OH. Data Collection and Analysis : HHC follow-up data at 6 to 8 months were obtained by contacting participants by phone or mail. Screening methods and participant characteristics were compared in relation to the probability of participants pursuing HHC during the follow-up period. Results The 2-minute educational video did not have a significant effect on HHC follow-up rates. When all participants who provided follow-up data are considered ( n =1012), the FFS was the only test that resulted in a significantly greater percentage of HHC follow-up (24.6%) compared with the control group (16.8%); p =0.03. However, for participants who failed a hearing screening ( n =467), follow-up results for all screening methods were significantly greater than for controls. The FFS resulted in a greater probability for HHC follow-up overall than the other two screening methods. Moreover, veterans had higher follow-up rates for all screening methods than non-veterans. Conclusion The FFS resulted in a greater HHC follow-up rate compared with the other screening methods. This self-administered test may be more motivational for HHC follow-up because participants who fail the screening are aware of sounds they could not hear which does not occur with adaptive assessments like AMTAS or the DIN test. It is likely that access to and reduced personal cost of audiological services for veterans contributed to higher HHC follow-up rates in this group compared with non-veteran participants.
引用
收藏
页码:235 / 245
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Hearing Loss, Hearing Aids, and Satisfaction With Health Care in the National Health Interview Survey
    Anthony, Teresa
    Assi, Sahar
    Morales, Emmanuel E. Garcia
    Jiang, Kening
    Aud, Danielle Powell
    Martinez-Amezcua, Pablo
    Oh, Esther S.
    Deal, Jennifer A.
    Reed, Nicholas S.
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2024, 170 (02) : 414 - 421
  • [2] A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
    Dubno, Judy R.
    Majumder, Pranab
    Bettger, Janet Prvu
    Dolor, Rowena J.
    Eifert, Victoria
    Francis, Howard W.
    Pieper, Carl F.
    Schulz, Kristine A.
    Silberberg, Mina
    Smith, Sherri L.
    Walker, Amy R.
    Witsell, David L.
    Tucci, Debara L.
    COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION, 2022, 20 (01)
  • [3] Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Hearing Health Care Among Older Americans
    Nieman, Carrie L.
    Marrone, Nicole
    Szanton, Sarah L.
    Thorpe, Roland J., Jr.
    Lin, Frank R.
    JOURNAL OF AGING AND HEALTH, 2016, 28 (01) : 68 - 94
  • [4] Hearing health survey of the population in Bangkok
    Ruencharoen, Suwimol
    Lertsukprasert, Krisna
    Suvanich, Ravin
    Seesangnom, Jirapat
    Chockboondee, Mondnath
    Aekplakorn, Wichai
    Jariengprasert, Chanchai
    Kiatthanabumrung, Sivaporn
    Wisupagan, Tosapohn
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [5] Health care of people with visual or hearing disabilities
    Campos, Valeria
    Cartes-Velasquez, Ricardo
    REVISTA MEDICA DE CHILE, 2019, 147 (05) : 634 - 642
  • [6] Smartphone-Based Hearing Screening at Primary Health Care Clinics
    Louw, Christine
    Swanepoel, De Wet
    Eikelboom, Robert H.
    Myburgh, Hermanus C.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2017, 38 (02): : E93 - E100
  • [7] Understanding Hearing Loss and Barriers to Hearing Health Care Among Korean American Older Adults: A Focus Group Study
    Choi, Janet S.
    Shim, Kyoo S.
    Kim, Kunhwa
    Nieman, Carrie L.
    Mamo, Sara K.
    Lin, Frank R.
    Han, Hae-Ra
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED GERONTOLOGY, 2018, 37 (11) : 1344 - 1367
  • [8] Unmet Hearing Health Care Needs: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study
    Nash, Scott D.
    Cruickshanks, Karen J.
    Huang, Guan-Hua
    Klein, Barbara E. K.
    Klein, Ronald
    Nieto, F. Javier
    Tweed, Theodore S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2013, 103 (06) : 1134 - 1139
  • [9] A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening
    Judy R. Dubno
    Pranab Majumder
    Janet Prvu Bettger
    Rowena J. Dolor
    Victoria Eifert
    Howard W. Francis
    Carl F. Pieper
    Kristine A. Schulz
    Mina Silberberg
    Sherri L. Smith
    Amy R. Walker
    David L. Witsell
    Debara L. Tucci
    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 20
  • [10] Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study
    Zazove, Philip
    Plegue, Melissa A.
    McKee, Michael M.
    DeJonckheere, Melissa
    Kileny, Paul R.
    Schleicher, Lauren S.
    Green, Lee A.
    Sen, Ananda
    Rapai, Mary E.
    Mulhem, Elie
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2020, 18 (06) : 520 - 527