Pediatric Audiology Report: Assessment and Revision of an Audiology Report Written to Parents of Children With Hearing Impairment

Abstract

This study shows that pediatric diagnostic audiology reports can be revised to adhere to best practice guidelines and yield improved readability, in addition to improving the comprehension, sense of self-efficacy, and positive opinions of parents of children with hearing impairment.

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

“…Additionally, they found that the readability estimates calculated for this report exceeded those of other audiology parental resources previously evaluated within the literature (Atcherson et al, 2013;Joubert, & Githinji, 2014;Swartz, 2010). However, this may be attributed to the type of diagnostic audiology report analysed (one which was specifically addressed to other health professionals and simply copied to the parents) (Donald & Kelly-Campbell, 2016). formula.…”

“…Moreover, with the number of readability formulas available for use since the 1980s reaching in excess of two-hundred, it can be a challenge for researchers to decide upon a formula appropriate for use within the field of audiology (DuBay, 2004). This thesis will employ the use of four readability formulas commonly used within the healthcare literature base: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula, the Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and the FORCAST formula (Donald & Kelly-Campbell, 2016;Klingbeil, Speece, & Schubiner, 1995;Ley & Florio, 1996;Wang, Miller, Schmitt, & Wen, 2013).…”

“…In order to maximise the number of adults who are able to read and comprehend health information, the general consensus is that materials should be written at the 4 th to 6 th grade reading level (Matthews & Sewell, 2002;Wang et al, 2013;Weis, 2003). At a very minimum, the readability of health information should not exceed the 6 th grade level (Doak, Doak, & Root, 1996;Donald & Kelly-Campbell, 2016;Friedman & Hoffman-Goetz, 2006;Yin, Forbis, & Dreyer, 2007). The recommended reading grade level of health information for elderly clients is even lower (Caposecco, Hickson, & Meyer, 2014).…”

“…Previous research has consistently found that the readability of health information (including patient-reported outcome measures used within the healthcare field) has exceeded those levels recommended by health literacy experts (D'Alessandro et al, 2001;Edmunds et al, 2013;Hansberry et al, 2014;Kong & Hu, 2015;Paasche-Orlow et al, 2003;Rudd et al, 2000;Sabharwal et al, 2008;Safeer and Keenan, 2005;Sharma et al, 2014;Svarstad et al, 2003;Zorn et al, 2004). The field of audiology is no exception (Atcherson et al, 2013(Atcherson et al, , 2014Donald & Kelly-Campbell, 2016;Joubert & Githinji, 2014;Laplante-Lévesque, Brännström, et al, 2012;Ritchie et al, 2016;Swartz, 2010). More specifically, recent research into the readability of audiologic PROMs continues to reveal that the reading grade levels of these questionnaires consistently exceed the recommended 4 th to 6 th grade (Atcherson et al, 2011(Atcherson et al, , 2013Kelly-Campbell et al, 2012).…”

Hearing, Emotion, Amplification, Research, and Training Workshop: Current Understanding of Hearing Loss and Emotion Perception and Priorities for Future Research

“…As a field, audiology has made great strides in the consideration of patients’ emotional responses in clinical situations, such as when delivering difficult news ( Donald & Kelly-Campbell, 2016 ; English, Mendel, Rojeski, & Hornak, 1999 ), considering the role of significant others ( Meyer et al., 2014 ; Scarinci, Worrall, & Hickson, 2009 ; Singh, Lau, & Pichora-Fuller, 2015 ; Stark & Hickson, 2004 ), and evaluating the role of hearing loss in psychosocial well-being ( Mener, Betz, Genther, Chen, & Lin, 2013 ; Mulrow et al., 1990 ; Pronk et al., 2011 ). One area that has received less attention, but has considerable potential to affect patients’ psychosocial function, is how hearing loss affects patients’ momentary emotional experiences.…”