Adult bone anchored hearing aid services in the United Kingdom: Building a consensus for development

Hill, Penny; Norman, Gary; Davison, T. C.; Andrew, Rachel; Shanks, Mary; Johnson, I.; Burrell, Stuart; Reid, Andrew; Archbold, Sue

doi:10.1179/1754762811y.0000000031

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[12][13][14] Repeated cycles of this process led to gradual narrowing of response distributions, eventually resulting in consensus. 15 The methodology has been successfully adapted for use in healthcare, [16][17][18][19] although healthcare-related studies have often used a modified Delphi method that involves direct interaction and discussion among participating experts rather than pure statistical feedback, as originally described by RAND. Because data directed at determining the optimal choice of either general or site-specific variables and outcome measures are so limited, we chose to apply the Delphi method.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures for pediatric laryngotracheal reconstruction: International consensus statement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures for pediatric laryngotracheal reconstruction: International consensus statement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another issue is defining the level of consensus. Studies that aim to define treatment protocols and medical procedures ( Hill et al 2012 ; Olthof et al 2013 ; Vitale et al 2013 ; Westby et al 2013 ) err toward higher predefined levels of agreement to represent consensus (usually ≥80 to 90% agreement). Studies where the outcome is less critical to immediate health or life (e.g., to define research priorities) can afford a less stringent interpretation of consensus ( Lindeman 1975 ; Bond & Bond 1982 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus on Hearing Aid Candidature and Fitting for Mild Hearing Loss, With and Without Tinnitus

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:In many countries including the United Kingdom, hearing aids are a first line of audiologic intervention for many people with tinnitus and aidable hearing loss. Nevertheless, there is a lack of high quality evidence to support that they are of benefit for tinnitus, and wide variability in their use in clinical practice especially for people with mild hearing loss. The aim of this study was to identify a consensus among a sample of UK clinicians on the criteria for hearing aid candidature and clinical practice in fitting hearing aids specifically for mild hearing loss with and without tinnitus. This will allow professionals to establish clinical benchmarks and to gauge their practice with that used elsewhere.Design:The Delphi technique, a systematic methodology that seeks consensus amongst experts through consultation using a series of iterative questionnaires, was used. A three-round Delphi survey explored clinical consensus among a panel of 29 UK hearing professionals. The authors measured panel agreement on 115 statements covering: (i) general factors affecting the decision to fit hearing aids, (ii) protocol-driven factors affecting the decision to fit hearing aids, (iii) general practice, and (iv) clinical observations. Consensus was defined as a priori ≥70% agreement across the panel.Results:Consensus was reached for 58 of the 115 statements. The broad areas of consensus were around factors important to consider when fitting hearing aids; hearing aid technology/features offered; and important clinical assessment to verify hearing aid fit (agreement of 70% or more). For patients with mild hearing loss, the greatest priority was given by clinicians to patient-centered criteria for fitting hearing aids: hearing difficulties, motivation to wear hearing aids, and impact of hearing loss on quality of life (chosen as top five by at least 64% of panelists). Objective measures were given a lower priority: degree of hearing loss and shape of the audiogram (chosen as top five by less than half of panelists). Areas where consensus was not reached were related to the use of questionnaires to predict and verify hearing aid benefit for both hearing and tinnitus; audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids; and safety of using loud sounds when verifying hearing aid fitting when the patient has tinnitus (agreement of <70%).Conclusions:The authors identified practices that are considered important when recommending or fitting hearing aid for a patient with tinnitus. More importantly perhaps, they identified practical issues where there are divided opinions. Their findings inform the design of clinical trials and open up debate on the potential impact of practice differences on patient outcomes.

show abstract

“…Repeated cycles of this process led to gradual narrowing of response distributions, eventually resulting in consensus 10 . The methodology has been successfully adapted for use in health care 11‐13 . In general, these studies have used a “modified” Delphi method that involves more direct interaction and discussion among participating experts rather than pure statistical feedback as originally described by RAND.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 The methodology has been successfully adapted for use in health care. [11][12][13] In general, these studies have used a ''modified'' Delphi method that involves more direct interaction and discussion among participating experts rather than pure statistical feedback as originally described by RAND. Because data directed at determining the optimal choice of either general or site-specific outcome measures are so limited, we chose to apply the modified Delphi method to investigate assessment and treatment of patients with HNLMs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Outcome and Reporting Measures in Pediatric Head and Neck Lymphatic Malformations

Balakrishnan

Bauman

Chun

et al. 2015

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adult bone anchored hearing aid services in the United Kingdom: Building a consensus for development

Abstract: The levels of agreement for the final questionnaire show that the mandate for the consensus statements was exceptionally high. Implementation of the consensus is discussed, as are each of the key areas of the consensus, such as funding and minimum assessment standards.

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Outcome measures for pediatric laryngotracheal reconstruction: International consensus statement

Outcome measures for pediatric laryngotracheal reconstruction: International consensus statement

Consensus on Hearing Aid Candidature and Fitting for Mild Hearing Loss, With and Without Tinnitus

Standardized Outcome and Reporting Measures in Pediatric Head and Neck Lymphatic Malformations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About