Anna Sciacca1, Carly Meyer2, Katie Ekberg1, Caitlin Barr3, Louise Hickson2. 1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 2. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaThe HEARing CRC, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aimed (a) to profile audiologists' language during the diagnosis and management planning phase of hearing assessment appointments and (b) to explore associations between audiologists' language and patients' decisions to obtain hearing aids. METHOD: Sixty-two audiologist-patient dyads participated. Patient participants were aged 55 years or older. Hearing assessment appointments were audiovisually recorded and transcribed for analysis. Audiologists' language was profiled using two measures: general language complexity and use of jargon. A binomial, multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the associations between these language measures and hearing aid uptake. RESULTS: The logistic regression model revealed that the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of audiologists' language was significantly associated with hearing aid uptake. Patients were less likely to obtain hearing aids when audiologists' language was at a higher reading grade level. No associations were found between audiologists' use of jargon and hearing aid uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists' use of complex language may present a barrier for patients to understand hearing rehabilitation recommendations. Reduced understanding may limit patient participation in the decision-making process and result in patients being less willing to trial hearing aids. Clear, concise language is recommended to facilitate shared decision making.
PURPOSE: The study aimed (a) to profile audiologists' language during the diagnosis and management planning phase of hearing assessment appointments and (b) to explore associations between audiologists' language and patients' decisions to obtain hearing aids. METHOD: Sixty-two audiologist-patient dyads participated. Patient participants were aged 55 years or older. Hearing assessment appointments were audiovisually recorded and transcribed for analysis. Audiologists' language was profiled using two measures: general language complexity and use of jargon. A binomial, multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the associations between these language measures and hearing aid uptake. RESULTS: The logistic regression model revealed that the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of audiologists' language was significantly associated with hearing aid uptake. Patients were less likely to obtain hearing aids when audiologists' language was at a higher reading grade level. No associations were found between audiologists' use of jargon and hearing aid uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists' use of complex language may present a barrier for patients to understand hearing rehabilitation recommendations. Reduced understanding may limit patient participation in the decision-making process and result in patients being less willing to trial hearing aids. Clear, concise language is recommended to facilitate shared decision making.