PURPOSE: This study investigated the predictors of rehabilitation intervention decisions in middle-age and older adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time. METHOD: Using shared decision making, 139 participants were offered intervention options: hearing aids, communication programs (group or individual), and no intervention. Multivariate analysis (logistic regression) provided odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for intervention decision predictors when all other variables were held constant. RESULTS: Seven intervention decision predictors were identified: (a) application for subsidized hearing services (participants more likely to choose hearing aids and less likely to choose communication programs), (b) hearing impairment (hearing aids more likely and no intervention less likely), (c) communication self-efficacy (hearing aids less likely), (d) powerful others as locus of control (hearing aids less likely), (e) hearing disability perceived by others and self (hearing aids more likely), (f) perceived communication program effectiveness (communication programs more likely), and (g) perceived suitability of individual communication program (hearing aids less likely and communication programs more likely). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest the need for clinicians to explicitly elicit the predictors identified by this study when involving adults with acquired hearing impairment in intervention decisions.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the predictors of rehabilitation intervention decisions in middle-age and older adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time. METHOD: Using shared decision making, 139 participants were offered intervention options: hearing aids, communication programs (group or individual), and no intervention. Multivariate analysis (logistic regression) provided odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for intervention decision predictors when all other variables were held constant. RESULTS: Seven intervention decision predictors were identified: (a) application for subsidized hearing services (participants more likely to choose hearing aids and less likely to choose communication programs), (b) hearing impairment (hearing aids more likely and no intervention less likely), (c) communication self-efficacy (hearing aids less likely), (d) powerful others as locus of control (hearing aids less likely), (e) hearing disability perceived by others and self (hearing aids more likely), (f) perceived communication program effectiveness (communication programs more likely), and (g) perceived suitability of individual communication program (hearing aids less likely and communication programs more likely). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest the need for clinicians to explicitly elicit the predictors identified by this study when involving adults with acquired hearing impairment in intervention decisions.
Authors: Margaret Barnett; Brian Hixon; Neville Okwiri; Catherine Irungu; John Ayugi; Robin Thompson; Jennifer B Shinn; Matthew L Bush Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 3.325