Some experiences with hearing disability/handicap and quality of life measures.

To achieve detailed information on the outcome of hearing rehabilitation in a clinical setting, measurements of hearing disability and hearing handicap have been introduced, and the present study describes the preliminary experiences with these measures in a series of hearing-impaired subjects referred for audiological evaluation. To outline hearing disability/hearing handicap (HD/HH), before continuation or initiation of treatment, the Gothenburg profile and a generic health-related quality of life--the SF-36 questionnaire--were used to evaluate any adverse effects resulting from hearing disorders. The Gothenburg profile and the SF-36 questionnaire were mailed to 634 subjects appointed for audiological examination with a request to complete the questionnaires at home. Three questions were enclosed concerning the capacity to complete the questionnaires, showing that 1.9 per cent were incapable of completing them, 17.5 per cent needed assistance, 43.5 per cent completed the questionnaires, and 37.1 per cent did not respond to them. Thus the response rate was only 55.5 per cent and, in addition, these responses were characterised by missing data. An arbitrary criterion of an average score per question of >3 for the averaged HD and HH items respectively was applied, resulting in 72.7 per cent indicating HD, whereas 30.3 per cent indicated HH according to the items in the profile. Significant differences in hearing levels were found between those experiencing HD and HH having a score >3 and those with a score <3. When analysing the general health status, general perception of health and social functioning, significantly lower scores were found for those experiencing HD/HH, whereas no significant differences were found between the total sample of hearing-impaired subjects and the age-matched population for these parameters. It is concluded that the present procedure cannot be implemented as a routine outcome measure in a clinical setting and alternative outcome measures should be considered.