Literature DB >> 16244759

The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults.

Rachel McArdle1, Theresa H Chisolm, Harvey B Abrams, Richard H Wilson, Patrick J Doyle.   

Abstract

The World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Scale II (WHO-DAS II) is a generic health-status instrument that provides six domain scores and a total, aggregate score. Two of the domain scores, communication and participation, and the total score, have good validity, internal-consistency reliability, and test-retest stability in individuals with adult-onset hearing loss. As such, these two domain scores and the total WHO-DAS II score may be useful as generic outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of hearing aid intervention for this population. Before the use of the WHO-DAS II in hearing aid clinical trials, however, the responsiveness of the instrument and the short- and long-term outcomes to hearing aid intervention had to be determined. Responsiveness and outcomes were assessed in 380 veterans (approximately half received hearing aids and half served as controls) by examining group differences, effect-size estimates, and individual differences as a function of hearing aid intervention. For comparison, data also were obtained on two disease-specific measures, the APHAB and the HHIE. The WHO-DAS II communication domain and total scores were sufficiently responsive to hearing aid intervention for use in future studies in which group differences are to be detected. The WHO-DAS II participation domain was not sufficiently responsive to hearing aid intervention. The APHAB and HHIE, both disease-specific measures, were more sensitive to hearing aid intervention than the generic measure. The short- and long-term outcomes of hearing aid intervention were also examined in the present study. Group outcomes for hearing aid intervention can be expected to be stable for at least 6 months when measured by WHO-DAS II total score and for at least 12 months when measured by the WHO-DAS II communication domain scores. Effect-size estimates and examination of the number of individuals exhibiting change scores exceeding 90% critical differences for true changes in scores indicate that for clinical applications, disease-specific instruments are more useful than the WHO-DAS II. The findings of this study support the use of the WHO-DAS II as a generic measure in hearing aid trials research so as to allow for comparisons of health-status outcomes across different diseases or disorders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16244759      PMCID: PMC4111523          DOI: 10.1177/108471380500900304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  36 in total

1.  The role of outcomes data in health-care resource allocation.

Authors:  L B Beck
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 2.  Analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Peter Peduzzi; William Henderson; Pamela Hartigan; Philip Lavori
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  Health status attributes of older African-American adults with hearing loss.

Authors:  Kenneth C Pugh
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.798

4.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit.

Authors:  R K Surr; M T Cord; B E Walden
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90.

Authors:  D B Hawkins; B E Walden; A Montgomery; R A Prosek
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Making hearing impairment functionally relevant: linkages with hearing disability and handicap.

Authors:  F H Bess; M J Lichtenstein; S A Logan
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1990

8.  The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults.

Authors:  Dayna S Dalton; Karen J Cruickshanks; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Terry L Wiley; David M Nondahl
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2003-10

9.  Response shift in the measurement of quality of life in hearing impaired adults after hearing aid fitting.

Authors:  M A Joore; J Potjewijd; A A Timmerman; L J C Anteunis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Intention-to-treat meets missing data: implications of alternate strategies for analyzing clinical trials data.

Authors:  Charla Nich; Kathleen M Carroll
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 4.492

View more
  11 in total

1.  Tinnitus outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Mary B Meikle; Barbara J Stewart; Susan E Griest; James A Henry
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-07-03

2.  Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD).

Authors:  Noelle E Carlozzi; Anna L Kratz; Nancy R Downing; Siera Goodnight; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas Migliore; Jane S Paulsen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Do group audiologic rehabilitation activities influence psychosocial outcomes?

Authors:  Jill E Preminger; Jae K Yoo
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 1.493

4.  Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Adoption by Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Weycker; Lauren K Dillard; Alex Pinto; Mary E Fischer; Karen J Cruickshanks; Ted S Tweed
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 1.636

5.  Consensus for tinnitus patient assessment and treatment outcome measurement: Tinnitus Research Initiative meeting, Regensburg, July 2006.

Authors:  B Langguth; R Goodey; A Azevedo; A Bjorne; A Cacace; A Crocetti; L Del Bo; D De Ridder; I Diges; T Elbert; H Flor; C Herraiz; T Ganz Sanchez; P Eichhammer; R Figueiredo; G Hajak; T Kleinjung; M Landgrebe; A Londero; M J A Lainez; M Mazzoli; M B Meikle; J Melcher; J P Rauschecker; P G Sand; M Struve; P Van de Heyning; P Van Dijk; R Vergara
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.453

6.  Can auditory and visual speech perception be trained within a group setting?

Authors:  Jill E Preminger; Craig H Ziegler
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.493

7.  Benefit of hearing aid use in the elderly: the impact of age, cognition and hearing impairment.

Authors:  G Tognola; A Mainardi; V Vincenti; D Cuda
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.124

8.  Development of the SWB-HL: A Scale of the Subjective Well-Being of Older Adults With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Larry E Humes
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-11

Review 9.  The impact of hearing loss on the quality of life of elderly adults.

Authors:  Andrea Ciorba; Chiara Bianchini; Stefano Pelucchi; Antonio Pastore
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.458

10.  Age-related hearing loss and the factors determining continued usage of hearing aids among elderly community-dwelling residents.

Authors:  Kunio Mizutari; Takehiro Michikawa; Hideyuki Saito; Yasuhide Okamoto; Chieko Enomoto; Toru Takebayashi; Kaoru Ogawa; Yuji Nishiwaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.