Predictors of Rehabilitation Intervention Decisions in Adults With Acquired Hearing Impairment PurposeThis study investigated the predictors of rehabilitation intervention decisions in middle-age and older adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time.MethodUsing 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 ... Article
Article  |   October 01, 2011
Predictors of Rehabilitation Intervention Decisions in Adults With Acquired Hearing Impairment
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Louise Hickson
    Communication Disability Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • Linda Worrall
    Communication Disability Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • Correspondence to Ariane Laplante-Lévesque, who is now with the Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon, Snekkersten, Denmark: arl@oticon.dk
  • Editor: Robert Schlauch
    Editor: Robert Schlauch×
  • Associate Editor: Harvey Abrams
    Associate Editor: Harvey Abrams×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Hearing
Article   |   October 01, 2011
Predictors of Rehabilitation Intervention Decisions in Adults With Acquired Hearing Impairment
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2011, Vol. 54, 1385-1399. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0116)
History: Received April 30, 2010 , Revised September 8, 2010 , Accepted January 13, 2011
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 2011, Vol. 54, 1385-1399. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0116)
History: Received April 30, 2010; Revised September 8, 2010; Accepted January 13, 2011
Web of Science® Times Cited: 14

PurposeThis study investigated the predictors of rehabilitation intervention decisions in middle-age and older adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time.

MethodUsing 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.

ResultsSeven 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).

ConclusionFindings suggest the need for clinicians to explicitly elicit the predictors identified by this study when involving adults with acquired hearing impairment in intervention decisions.

Acknowledgments
The first author acknowledges the financial support of the Australian Department of Education, Science, and Training. We sincerely thank the Office of Hearing Services of the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Ageing for their recruitment assistance, the study participants for their enthusiasm, Asad Khan for statistical advice, and Mary Beth Jennings and Sophia Kramer for valuable feedback.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access