International journal of audiology · 2021
How do patients decide on interventions for single sided deafness? A qualitative investigation of patient views.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Underdown Thomas, Pryce Helen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness presents communication challenges for adults. There are a range of care options, including CROS hearing aids, available but little is known about patient preferences for these interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the viewpoints of patients making decisions about audiological interventions they use.
METHODS: A constructivist worldview using thematic analysis to undertake a constant comparative analysis of 8 semi-structured interviews.
SAMPLING: Participants were recruited from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust audiology service in England.
FINDINGS: The results of the study describe ongoing iterative judgements being made by participants, informed by their access to information, effectiveness of audiological interventions, stigma, barriers to accessing care, and constant cost-benefit analyses being made. The key factors involved in decision-making by individuals with Single-sided deafness (SSD) are discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first in-depth exploration of the individual's lifeworld related to which factors influence use of different audiological interventions by individuals with SSD. It highlights the complex and ongoing nature of how decisions are made by these individuals and identifies the need for greater information provision by clinicians, such as through use of a decision aid tool.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the viewpoints of patients making decisions about audiological interventions they use.
METHODS: A constructivist worldview using thematic analysis to undertake a constant comparative analysis of 8 semi-structured interviews.
SAMPLING: Participants were recruited from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust audiology service in England.
FINDINGS: The results of the study describe ongoing iterative judgements being made by participants, informed by their access to information, effectiveness of audiological interventions, stigma, barriers to accessing care, and constant cost-benefit analyses being made. The key factors involved in decision-making by individuals with Single-sided deafness (SSD) are discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first in-depth exploration of the individual's lifeworld related to which factors influence use of different audiological interventions by individuals with SSD. It highlights the complex and ongoing nature of how decisions are made by these individuals and identifies the need for greater information provision by clinicians, such as through use of a decision aid tool.