Robert L Folmer1,2, Gabrielle H Saunders1,3, Jay J Vachhani1, Robert H Margolis4, George Saly4, Bevan Yueh5, Rachel A McArdle6, Lawrence L Feth7, Christina M Roup7, M Patrick Feeney1,2. 1. VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. Audiology Incorporated, Arden Hills, Minnesota. 5. Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6. Office of Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC. 7. Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study examined follow-up rates for pursuing hearing health care (HHC) 6 to 8 months after participants self-administered one of three hearing screening methods: an automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS), a four-frequency pure-tone screener (FFS), or a digits-in-noise test (DIN), with and without the presentation of a 2-minute educational video about hearing. PURPOSE: The study aims to determine if the type of self-administered hearing screening method (with or without an educational video) affects HHC follow-up rates. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is a randomized controlled trial of three automated hearing screening methods, plus control group, with and without an educational video. The control group completed questionnaires and provided follow-up data but did not undergo a hearing screening test. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample includes 1,665 participants (mean age 50.8 years; 935 males) at two VA Medical Centers and at university and community centers in Portland, OR; Bay Pines, FL; Minneapolis, MN; Mauston, WI; and Columbus, OH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: HHC follow-up data at 6 to 8 months were obtained by contacting participants by phone or mail. Screening methods and participant characteristics were compared in relation to the probability of participants pursuing HHC during the follow-up period. RESULTS: The 2-minute educational video did not have a significant effect on HHC follow-up rates. When all participants who provided follow-up data are considered (n = 1012), the FFS was the only test that resulted in a significantly greater percentage of HHC follow-up (24.6%) compared with the control group (16.8%); p = 0.03. However, for participants who failed a hearing screening (n = 467), follow-up results for all screening methods were significantly greater than for controls. The FFS resulted in a greater probability for HHC follow-up overall than the other two screening methods. Moreover, veterans had higher follow-up rates for all screening methods than non-veterans. CONCLUSION: The FFS resulted in a greater HHC follow-up rate compared with the other screening methods. This self-administered test may be more motivational for HHC follow-up because participants who fail the screening are aware of sounds they could not hear which does not occur with adaptive assessments like AMTAS or the DIN test. It is likely that access to and reduced personal cost of audiological services for veterans contributed to higher HHC follow-up rates in this group compared with non-veteran participants. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
BACKGROUND: The study examined follow-up rates for pursuing hearing health care (HHC) 6 to 8 months after participants self-administered one of three hearing screening methods: an automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS), a four-frequency pure-tone screener (FFS), or a digits-in-noise test (DIN), with and without the presentation of a 2-minute educational video about hearing. PURPOSE: The study aims to determine if the type of self-administered hearing screening method (with or without an educational video) affects HHC follow-up rates. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is a randomized controlled trial of three automated hearing screening methods, plus control group, with and without an educational video. The control group completed questionnaires and provided follow-up data but did not undergo a hearing screening test. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample includes 1,665 participants (mean age 50.8 years; 935 males) at two VA Medical Centers and at university and community centers in Portland, OR; Bay Pines, FL; Minneapolis, MN; Mauston, WI; and Columbus, OH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: HHC follow-up data at 6 to 8 months were obtained by contacting participants by phone or mail. Screening methods and participant characteristics were compared in relation to the probability of participants pursuing HHC during the follow-up period. RESULTS: The 2-minute educational video did not have a significant effect on HHC follow-up rates. When all participants who provided follow-up data are considered (n = 1012), the FFS was the only test that resulted in a significantly greater percentage of HHC follow-up (24.6%) compared with the control group (16.8%); p = 0.03. However, for participants who failed a hearing screening (n = 467), follow-up results for all screening methods were significantly greater than for controls. The FFS resulted in a greater probability for HHC follow-up overall than the other two screening methods. Moreover, veterans had higher follow-up rates for all screening methods than non-veterans. CONCLUSION: The FFS resulted in a greater HHC follow-up rate compared with the other screening methods. This self-administered test may be more motivational for HHC follow-up because participants who fail the screening are aware of sounds they could not hear which does not occur with adaptive assessments like AMTAS or the DIN test. It is likely that access to and reduced personal cost of audiological services for veterans contributed to higher HHC follow-up rates in this group compared with non-veteran participants. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
Authors: Ariane Laplante-Lévesque; K Jonas Brännström; Elisabeth Ingo; Gerhard Andersson; Thomas Lunner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: C Thodi; M Parazzini; S E Kramer; A Davis; S Stenfelt; T Janssen; P Smith; D Stephens; M Pronk; L I Anteunis; V Schirkonyer; F Grandori Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 1.493
Authors: K J Cruickshanks; T L Wiley; T S Tweed; B E Klein; R Klein; J A Mares-Perlman; D M Nondahl Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Judy R Dubno; Pranab Majumder; Janet Prvu Bettger; Rowena J Dolor; Victoria Eifert; Howard W Francis; Carl F Pieper; Kristine A Schulz; Mina Silberberg; Sherri L Smith; Amy R Walker; David L Witsell; Debara L Tucci Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2022-06-25