Bhavisha J Parmar1,2, Saima L Rajasingam3, Jennifer K Bizley1, Deborah A Vickers2. 1. UCL Ear Institute, University College London, United Kingdom. 2. Sound Lab, Cambridge Hearing Group, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate hearing health care professionals' (HHPs) speech testing practices in routine adult audiology services and better understand the facilitators and barriers to speech testing provision. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted. STUDY SAMPLE: A sample (N = 306) of HHPs from the public (64%) and private (36%) sectors in the United Kingdom completed the survey. RESULTS: In the United Kingdom, speech testing practice varied significantly between health sectors. Speech testing was carried out during the audiology assessment by 73.4% of private sector HHPs and 20.4% of those from the public sector. During the hearing aid intervention stage, speech testing was carried out by 56.5% and 26.5% of HHPs from the private and public sectors, respectively. Recognized benefits of speech testing included (a) providing patients with relatable assessment information, (b) guiding hearing aid fitting, and (c) supporting a diagnostic test battery. A lack of clinical time was a key barrier to uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Use of speech testing varies in adult audiology. Results from this study found that the percentage of U.K. HHPs making use of speech tests was low compared to that of other countries. HHPs recognized different benefits of speech testing in audiology practice, but the barriers limiting uptake were often driven by factors derived from decision makers rather than clinical rationale. Privately funded HHPs used speech tests more frequently than those working in the public sector where time and resources are under greater pressure and governed by guidance that does not include a recommendation for speech testing. Therefore, the inclusion of speech testing in national clinical guidelines could increase the consistency of use and facilitate the comparison of practice trends across centers. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044457.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate hearing health care professionals' (HHPs) speech testing practices in routine adult audiology services and better understand the facilitators and barriers to speech testing provision. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted. STUDY SAMPLE: A sample (N = 306) of HHPs from the public (64%) and private (36%) sectors in the United Kingdom completed the survey. RESULTS: In the United Kingdom, speech testing practice varied significantly between health sectors. Speech testing was carried out during the audiology assessment by 73.4% of private sector HHPs and 20.4% of those from the public sector. During the hearing aid intervention stage, speech testing was carried out by 56.5% and 26.5% of HHPs from the private and public sectors, respectively. Recognized benefits of speech testing included (a) providing patients with relatable assessment information, (b) guiding hearing aid fitting, and (c) supporting a diagnostic test battery. A lack of clinical time was a key barrier to uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Use of speech testing varies in adult audiology. Results from this study found that the percentage of U.K. HHPs making use of speech tests was low compared to that of other countries. HHPs recognized different benefits of speech testing in audiology practice, but the barriers limiting uptake were often driven by factors derived from decision makers rather than clinical rationale. Privately funded HHPs used speech tests more frequently than those working in the public sector where time and resources are under greater pressure and governed by guidance that does not include a recommendation for speech testing. Therefore, the inclusion of speech testing in national clinical guidelines could increase the consistency of use and facilitate the comparison of practice trends across centers. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044457.
Authors: Michael A Akeroyd; Stig Arlinger; Ruth A Bentler; Arthur Boothroyd; Norbert Dillier; Wouter A Dreschler; Jean-Pierre Gagné; Mark Lutman; Jan Wouters; Lena Wong; Birger Kollmeier Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Vijayalakshmi Easwar; Sriram Boothalingam; Srikanth Chundu; Vinaya K C Manchaiah; S Mohammed Ismail Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-08-02
Authors: Gitte Keidser; Graham Naylor; Douglas S Brungart; Andreas Caduff; Jennifer Campos; Simon Carlile; Mark G Carpenter; Giso Grimm; Volker Hohmann; Inga Holube; Stefan Launer; Thomas Lunner; Ravish Mehra; Frances Rapport; Malcolm Slaney; Karolina Smeds Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2020 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.562