Download PDF
Semin Hear 2005; 26(3): 157-169
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-916379
Published in 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

From Outcomes to Evidence: Establishing Best Practices for Audiologists

Harvey B. Abrams1 , 2 , Rachel McArdle1 , 2 , Theresa Hnath Chisolm1 , 2
  • 1Audiology & Speech Pathology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bay Pines, Florida
  • 2University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 September 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACTS

One of the major challenges in health care today is to ensure optimum outcomes for patients presenting with similar problems no matter where or from whom they receive their treatment. One of our objectives as clinicians, and as a profession, should be to capture and systemize the practices that lead to the best outcomes and eliminate those that result in less than optimal results. Fortunately, there are methods to assist us in achieving this goal. This article reviews these methods through examining how we can use outcome measures and evidence-based practice principles to establish best clinical practices in audiology. Although the focus of this review is on hearing aid-related intervention, the principles discussed are applicable to all aspects of audiologic diagnostics and treatment.

KEYWORDS

Outcomes assessment (health care) - evidence-based medicine - audiology

REFERENCES

  • 1 World Health Organization .International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps-A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease Geneva; World Health Organization 1980
  • 2 World Health Organization .International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva; World Health Organization 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 3 French N R, Steinberg J C. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1947;  19 90-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ventry I M, Weinstein B E. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool.  Ear Hear. 1982;  3 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cox R, Alexander G. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit.  Ear Hear. 1995;  16 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;  8 27-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Beck L B. The role of outcomes data in health-care resource allocation.  Ear Hear. 2000;  21 89S-96S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mulrow C D, Aguilar C, Endicott J E et al.. Association between hearing impairment and quality of life of older individuals.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;  38 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Abrams H B, Hnath Chisolm T, McArdle R. A cost utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: are the benefits worth the cost?.  J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;  39 549-558
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ware J E, Sherbourne C D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection.  Med Care. 1992;  30 473-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bess F H. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes.  Ear Hear. 2000;  21 74S-79S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 World Health Organization .Disablements Assessment Schedule Geneva; World Health Organization 1999
  • 13 Abrams H B, McArdle R, Hnath Chisolm T, Doyle P, Wilson R M. Functioning, disability and quality of life in the adult hearing impaired. Poster session presented at the biannual International Hearing Aid Research Conference; August. 2004 Lake Tahoe, CA;
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed New York; Oxford University Press 1997
  • 15 Piccirillo J F, Merritt M G, Valente M, Littenberg B, Nease R F. U-titer: a new tool for measuring preferences for hearing. Poster session presented at the Second Biennial Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference; September 1997 Bethesda, MD;
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Abrams H B, Hnath Chisolm T, Kenworthy M. Utility approach to measuring hearing aid outcomes. Poster session presented at the biannual International Hearing Aid Research Conference; August 2002 Lake Tahoe, CA;
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Cox R M, Alexander G C. The International Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version.  Int J Audiol. 2002;  41 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cox R M, Alexander G C. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale.  Ear Hear. 1999;  20 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;  10 80-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Palmer C V, Killion M C, Wilber L A, Ballard W J. Comparison of two hearing aid receiver-amplifier combinations using sound quality judgments.  Ear Hear. 1995;  16 587-598
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hnath Chisolm T, Abrams H B. Measuring hearing aid benefit utilizing a willingness-to-pay approach.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 383-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wyatt J R, Niparko J K, Rothman R, DeLissovoy G. Cost of utility of the multichannel cochlear implant in 258 profoundly deaf individuals.  Laryngoscope. 1996;  106 816-821
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sackett D L, Rosenberg W M, Gray J A, Haynes R B, Richardson W S. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.  BMJ. 1996;  312 71-72
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Larson V D, Henderson W G, Williams D W et al.. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits, a crossover trial.  JAMA. 2000;  284 1806-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Johnson T, Flamme G. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures.  Ear Hear. 2003;  24 215-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nich C, Carroll K. Intention-to-treat meets missing data: implication of alternate strategies for analyzing clinical trials data.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;  68 121-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Overall J, Shobaki G, Shivakumar C, Steele J. Adjusting sample size for anticipated dropouts in clinical trials.  Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;  34 25-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Legislative Counsel ASHA .Preferred practice patterns for the profession of audiology. [On-line]. 1997 http://Available at: Hostname: www.asha.org
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Algorithms and Statements .Statement 3 & algorithm 3, hearing aid fitting (adult). Reprinted by the American Academy of Audiology from Audiology Today [On-line]. 2000 http://Available at: www.audiology.org/professional/positions/algorithms.pdg
    Google Scholar
  • 30 ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting .Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. [On-line]. 1997 http://Available at: www.asha.org
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Humes L E, Christensen L A, Bess F H, Hedley-Williams A. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;  40 666-685
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Surr R K, Cord M T, Walden B E. Comparison of linear and K-amp circuits.  Ear Hear. 1997;  18 140-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cox R M, Gilmore C. Development of the profile of hearing aid performance (PHAP).  J Speech Hear Res. 1990;  33 343-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ricketts T, Henry P. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid.  Int J Audiol. 2002;  41 100-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;  15 353-364
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Amlani A M. Efficacy of directional microphone hearing aids: a meta-analytic perspective.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 202-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Newman C, Sandridge S. Review of research on digital signal processing. In: M. Valente Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. 2nd ed New York; Thieme Medical 2002: 347-381
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Taylor R S, Paisley S, Davis A. Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids.  Br J Audiol. 2001;  35 271-288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Abrams H, Hnath-Chisolm T, Guerreiro S, Ritterman S. The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap.  Ear Hear. 1992;  13 371-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Primeau R L. Hearing aid benefit in adults and older adults.  Semin Hear. 1997;  18 29-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hnath Chisolm T, Abrams H B, McArdle R. Short and long-term outcomes of Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation.  Ear Hear. 2004;  25 464-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Demorest M, Erdman S. Scale composition and item analysis of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired.  J Speech Hear Res. 1986;  29 515-535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kazis L E, Ren X S, Lee A et al.. Health status in VA patients: results from the Veterans Health Study.  Am J Med Q. 1999;  14 28-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE WEB SITES

Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality

http://www.ahrq.gov/

International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health

http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm?myurl=homepal&mytitle=Home%20Page

*Center for Evidence-Based Medicine

http://www.cebm.net/

The Cochrane Collaboration

http://www.cochrane.org/

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)

http://nhscrd.york.ac.uk/darehp.htm

Clinical Evidence

http://clinicalevidence.com

Evidence Based Medicine Online

http://ebm.bmjjournals.com/

Evidence-Based Medicine Resource Center

http://www.ebmny.org/

*Introduction to Evidence-Based Medicine

http://www.hsl.unc.edu/lm/ebm/

Evidence-Based Medicine Learning and Information Services

http://www.herts.ac.uk/lis/subjects/health/ebm.htm

*Highest recommendation as an excellent starting point.

Harvey B AbramsPh.D. 

Audiology & Speech Pathology Service, VA Medical Center

P.O. Box 5005, Bay Pines, FL 33744

Email: harvey.Abrams@med.va.gov