Dataset Information

Revealing Hearing Loss: A Survey of How People Verbally Disclose Their Hearing Loss.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit and congenital anomaly, yet the decision-making processes involved in disclosing hearing loss have been little studied. To address this issue, we have explored the phrases that adults with hearing loss use to disclose their hearing loss. DESIGN:Since self-disclosure research has not focused on hearing loss-specific issues, we created a 15-question survey about verbally disclosing hearing loss. English speaking adults (>18 years old) with hearing loss of any etiology were recruited from otology clinics in a major referral hospital. Three hundred and thirty-seven participants completed the survey instrument. Participants' phrase(s) used to tell people they have hearing loss were compared across objective characteristics (age; sex; type, degree, and laterality of hearing loss; word recognition scores) and self-reported characteristics (degree of hearing loss; age of onset and years lived with hearing loss; use of technology; hearing handicap score). RESULTS:Participants' responses revealed three strategies to address hearing loss: Multipurpose disclosure (phrases that disclose hearing loss and provide information to facilitate communication), Basic disclosure (phrases that disclose hearing loss through the term, a label, or details about the condition), or nondisclosure (phrases that do not disclose hearing loss). Variables were compared between patients who used and who did not use each disclosure strategy using ? or Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Multipurpose disclosers were mostly female (p = 0.002); had experienced reactions of help, support, and accommodation after disclosing (p = 0.008); and had experienced reactions of being overly helpful after disclosing (p=0.039). Basic disclosers were predominantly male (p = 0.004); reported feeling somewhat more comfortable disclosing their hearing loss over time (p = 0.009); had not experienced reactions of being treated unfairly or discriminated against (p = 0.021); and were diagnosed with mixed hearing loss (p = 0.004). Nondisclosers tended not to disclose in a group setting (p = 0.002) and were diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss (p = 0.005). In addition, all of the variables were examined to build logistic regression models to predict the use of each disclosure strategy. CONCLUSIONS:Our results reveal three simple strategies for verbally addressing hearing loss that can be used in a variety of contexts. We recommend educating people with hearing loss about these strategies-this could improve the experience of disclosing hearing loss, and could educate society at large about how to interact with those who have a hearing loss.

SUBMITTER: West JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6721611 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Revealing Hearing Loss: A Survey of How People Verbally Disclose Their Hearing Loss.

West Jessica S JS Low Jacob C M JC Stankovic Konstantina M KM

Ear and hearing 20160301 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit and congenital anomaly, yet the decision-making processes involved in disclosing hearing loss have been little studied. To address this issue, we have explored the phrases that adults with hearing loss use to disclose their hearing loss.<h4>Design</h4>Since self-disclosure research has not focused on hearing loss-specific issues, we created a 15-question survey about verbally disclosing hearing loss. English speaking adults (>18 y ...[more]

PMID: 26513208

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recently, dynamic text presentation, such as scrolling text, has been widely used. Texts are often presented at constant timing and speed in conventional dynamic text presentation. However, dynamic text presentation enables visually presented texts to indicate timing information, such as prosody, and the texts might influence the impression of reading. In this paper, we examined this possibility by focusing on the temporal features of digital text in which texts are represented sequentially and with varying speed, duration, and timing. We call this "textual prosody." We used three types of textual prosody: "Recorded," "Shuffled," and "Constant." Recorded prosody is the reproduction of a reader's reading with pauses and varying speed that simulates talking. Shuffled prosody randomly shuffles the time course of speed and pauses in the recorded type. Constant prosody has a constant presentation speed and provides no timing information. Experiment 1 examined the effect of textual prosody on people with normal hearing. Participants read dynamic text with textual prosody silently and rated their impressions of texts. The results showed that readers with normal hearing preferred recorded textual prosody and constant prosody at the optimum speed (6 letters/second). Recorded prosody was also preferred at a low presentation speed. Experiment 2 examined the characteristics of textual prosody using an articulatory suppression paradigm. The results showed that some textual prosody was stored in the articulatory loop despite it being presented visually. In Experiment 3, we examined the effect of textual prosody with readers with hearing loss. The results demonstrated that readers with hearing loss had positive impressions at relatively low presentation speeds when the recorded prosody was presented. The results of this study indicate that the temporal structure is processed regardless of whether the input is visual or auditory. Moreover, these results suggest that textual prosody can enrich reading not only in people with normal hearing but also in those with hearing loss, regardless of acoustic experiences.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate discrepancies prevalent between self-reported hearing difficulty (SHD) and audiometrically measured hearing loss (AHL) and factors associated with such discrepancies.DesignNationwide cross-sectional survey.SettingData from 2010 to 2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.ParticipantsWe included 14 345 participants aged ≥19 years who had normal tympanic membranes (mean age of 49 years).MeasuresSelf-reported hearing was assessed by asking participants whether they had difficulty in hearing. AHL was defined as >25 dB of mean hearing thresholds measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in better ear. Underestimated hearing impairment (HI) was defined as having AHL without SHD. Likewise, overestimated HI was defined as having SHD without AHL. Prevalence of underestimated and overestimated HIs was determined. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to examine factors associated with such discrepancies compared with concordant HL.ResultsAmong 14 345 participants, 1876 (13.1%) had underestimated HI while 733 (5.1%) had overestimated HI. Multivariable models revealed that participants who had discrepancies between SHD and AHL were less likely to have older age (OR: 0.979, 95% CI: 0.967 to 0.991 for the underestimated HI, OR: 0.905, 95% CI: 0.890 to 0.921 for the overestimated HI) and tinnitus (OR: 0.425, 95% CI: 0.344 to 0.525 for the underestimated HI and OR 0.523, 95% CI: 0.391 to 0.699 for the overestimated HI) compared with those who had concordant HI. Exposure to occupational noise (OR: 0.566, 95% CI: 0.423 to 0.758) was associated with underestimated HI, and medical history of hypertension (OR: 1.501, 95% CI: 1.061 to 2.123) and depression (OR: 1.771, 95% CI: 1.041 to 3.016) was associated with overestimated HI.ConclusionAge, tinnitus, occupational noise exposure, hypertension and depression should be incorporated into evaluation of hearing loss in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundSudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) is a medical emergency requiring immediate attention as delayed treatment can lead to permanent and devastating consequences. Primary care physicians are likely the first to be presented with SSNHL and therefore have the crucial role of recognizing it and initiating timely and appropriate management. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the current knowledge and practice trends pertaining to the diagnosis and management of SSNHL among family physicians in Canada.MethodsAn 18-question survey targeting Canadian family physicians was marketed through two, physician-only discussion groups on the social media platform Facebook. Responses were collected between August 1st and December 22nd 2019 then aggregated and quantified.Results52 family physicians submitted responses. 94.2% (n = 49) reported that in their practice, unilateral SSNHL warrants urgent referral to otolaryngology and 84.6% (n = 44) reported that unilateral sudden-onset hearing loss warrants urgent referral for audiological testing. 73.1% of participants (n = 38) reported that they would attempt to differentiate between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss if presented with unilateral, acute or sudden-onset hearing loss. 61.5% (n = 32) would rely on tuning fork tests to inform management decisions, as compared to 94.2% (n = 49) relying on case history and 88.5% (n = 46) on otoscopy. 76.9% (n = 40) would prescribe corticosteroids if presented with confirmed, unilateral SSNHL.ConclusionThe majority of family physicians in the study would make appropriate referral and treatment decisions in the management of SSNHL, understanding it is a medical emergency. Tuning fork tests are under-utilized for informing management decisions compared to other means of differentiating conductive and sensorineural hearing loss. Further research is needed to understand why some family physicians do not prescribe corticosteroids for treatment of SSNHL, which may then identify any gaps in knowledge or inform improvements in clinical protocol.

Dataset Information

Revealing Hearing Loss: A Survey of How People Verbally Disclose Their Hearing Loss.

Publications

Revealing Hearing Loss: A Survey of How People Verbally Disclose Their Hearing Loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets