PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Robyn M Cox

Publications and source records attributed to Robyn M Cox.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence indicates that elderly hearing-impaired people who use amplification live happier, healthier, and longer lives than those who do not. Nevertheless, only a small fraction (approximately 23%) of hearing-impaired adults actually seek and use hearing aids. This study explored the personalities of hearing aid seekers in an attempt to determine whether those who seek hearing aids are systematically different from the general population. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional survey, self-report data were obtained from 230 older adults with bilateral, symmetrical, sensorineural, mild to moderately severe hearing impairment. Subjects were representative of patients served either in a publicly funded hospital-based system (VA) or in a free-standing private practice system (PP). All subjects were seeking new hearing aids. Subjects completed a comprehensive personality questionnaire (NEO-Five-Factor Inventory) as well as questionnaires determining locus of control and preferred coping strategies. RESULTS: Individuals who seek amplification are not simply a random sample of the general population and presumably not a random sample of the hearing-impaired population. Compared with the typical adult, hearing aid seekers tended to be more pragmatic and routine-oriented and probably less imaginative in coming up with novel approaches to dealing with a complex problem such as hearing impairment. These individuals also were found to feel relatively more personally powerful in dealing with life's challenges. Further, hearing aid seekers reported using social support coping strategies less frequently than their non-hearing-impaired peers. In addition, there were significant differences in personality patterns between hearing aid seekers in the PP and VA systems. Differences noted in the personality traits of Openness and Neuroticism might be a useful guide to selecting treatment approaches and expectations for patients in each setting. Additional differences in Agreeableness imply that patients in the private practice system were more trusting than those in the general population, whereas this was not seen for patients in the public health VA system. One interpretation of this finding is that hearing-impaired individuals who are more suspicious and cynical are reluctant to try amplification in the PP system. This observation underscores the need to improve the public image of hearing health care to increase the uptake of hearing aids in general. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual hearing aid seekers display personality characteristics within the range of normal, this study suggested that they are not simply a random sample of the general population. Possible explanations are offered for significant personality differences, and potential clinical relevance is noted for some effects. The data also point to a need to improve the public image of hearing health care in the PP system.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2005

Hearing aid patients in private practice and public health (Veterans Affairs) clinics: are they different?

OBJECTIVE: In hearing aid research, it is commonplace to combine data across subjects whose hearing aids were provided in different service delivery models. There is reason to question whether these types of patients are always similar enough to justify this practice. To explore this matter, this investigation evaluated similarities and differences in self-report data obtained from hearing aid patients derived from public health (Veterans Affairs, VA) and private practice (PP) settings. DESIGN: The study was a multisite, cross-sectional survey in which 230 hearing aid patients from VA and PP audiology clinic settings provided self-report data on a collection of questionnaires both before and after the hearing aid fitting. Subjects were all older adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. About half of them had previous experience wearing hearing aids. All subjects were fitted with wide-dynamic-range-compression instruments and received similar treatment protocols. RESULTS: Numerous statistically significant differences were observed between the VA and PP subject groups. Before the fitting, VA patients reported higher expectations from the hearing aids and more severe unaided problems compared with PP patients with similar audiograms. Three wks after the fitting, VA patients reported more satisfaction with their hearing aids. On some measures VA patients reported more benefit, but different measures of benefit did not give completely consistent results. Both groups reported using the hearing aids an average of approximately 8 hrs per day. VA patients reported age-normal physical and mental health, but PP patients tended to report better than typical health for their age group. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that hearing aid patients seen in the VA public health hearing services are systematically different in self-report domains from those seen in private practice services. It is therefore risky to casually combine data from these two types of subjects or to generalize research results from one group to the other. Further, compared with PP patients, VA patients consistently reported more favorable hearing aid fitting outcomes. Additional study is indicated to explore the determinants of this result and its generalizability to other public health service delivery systems such as those in other countries. Moreover, efforts should be made to assess the potential for transferring positive elements from the VA system to the PP service delivery system, if possible.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client's point of view.

This paper provides an overview of the measurement of hearing aid fitting outcomes in real life using self-report methods. Three topics are addressed: (1) why we should measure real-life outcomes; (2) seven different types of self-report outcome data; and (3) issues to consider in self-report outcome measurement. It is stressed that self-report data provide a unique view of the way that clients function and feel in their daily lives with regard to their hearing health. Self-report outcome data are multidimensional, and the different domains are only moderately correlated. When these types of data are gathered, it is essential to control relevant variables to safeguard validity and reliability.

Extraversion, Psychological↗
PubMed2003

Audiometric correlates of the unaided APHAB.

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) is a self-report questionnaire that is used to quantify the impact of a hearing problem on an individual's daily life. In this investigation, the relationships were explored between typical clinical audiometric data and the four subscale scores of the APHAB administered in the unaided (without-amplification) condition. Sixty subjects provided APHAB scores, audiograms, and speech recognition data. Analyses revealed significant relationships between audiometric data and each of the three APHAB subscales that reflect speech communication (EC, RV, and BN). None of these subscales was significantly more strongly related to any specific audiological variable. However, the pattern of associations between audiometric variables and subscale scores was consistent with predictions based on item content for subscales EC and RV, but not for BN. As predicted, no relationship was found between audiometric data and scores for the Aversiveness subscale (AV). Even for the subscales with the strongest associations, differences in audiometric data could be used to explain half or less of the variance in self-report data.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Norms for the international outcome inventory for hearing aids.

The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) is a seven-item survey that was developed for use in research settings to facilitate comparison of data across diverse investigations. The inventory also has potential applications in clinical evaluation of hearing aid fitting outcomes. This article reports the development of norms for the inventory that are suitable for use with group data in research applications, and individual data in a clinical setting. The normative group was defined as adults fitted bilaterally with analog, single-channel, single-memory, compression processing, in-the-ear hearing aids. There were 154 subjects. Associations between outcomes and demographic variables (e.g., gender, hearing loss, etc.) were explored, and several relationships were seen. Based on these data, two sets of norms were derived. The appropriate set will depend on the individual's reported subjective hearing problems without amplification.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version.

The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) is a seven-item questionnaire designed to be generally applicable in evaluating the effectiveness of hearing aid treatments. The inventory was developed to facilitate cooperation among researchers and program evaluators in diverse settings. It is brief and general enough to be appended to other outcome measures that might be planned in a particular application, and will provide directly comparable data across otherwise incompatible projects. For this plan to be successful, it is essential to generate psychometrically equivalent translations in the languages in which hearing aid research and treatment assessments are performed. This article reports the psychometric properties of the inventory for the original English version. The items are reasonably internally consistent, providing adequate statistical support for summing the scores to generate a total outcome score. However, for maximum internal consistency, it would be desirable to generate two scores for the inventory.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evidence-based practice in provision of amplification.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been widely embraced in many health-care fields as a way of maintaining currency of knowledge and state-of-the-art treatment recommendations in an age of information abundance and rapid scientific progress. Although the principles of EBP are slowly entering the specialties of communication disorders, they are not well known or extensively employed as yet. In this article, the rationale for EBP is presented and differences between EBP and traditional practice are highlighted. The five-step process of EBP is described: defining the problem, searching for evidence, critically appraising the evidence, formulating a recommendation, and assessing the outcome. Critical appraisal calls for determination of the validity, clinical significance, and applicability of evidence. Each of these topics is explored with emphasis placed on the application of EBP to hearing rehabilitation. Finally some suggestions are offered for researchers and practitioners to facilitate a transition to EBP in amplification provision.

Audiology↗