International journal of audiology · 2021
Effectiveness of a web-based SUpport PRogramme (SUPR) for communication partners of persons with hearing loss: results of a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Meijerink Janine F J, Pronk Marieke, Lissenberg-Witte Birgit I, Jansen Vera, Kramer Sophia E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of web-based SUpport PRogram (SUPR) for communication partners (CPs) of persons with hearing loss (PHLs) in a HA dispensing setting.
DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with two arms (SUPR: Booklet, online videos; care as usual: no support) plus process evaluation. Measurements: baseline, and immediately-, six, and 12 months post-intervention. Outcomes: Significant Other Scale for Hearing Disability (SOS-HEAR), International Outcome Inventory for HAs/Alternative Interventions for Significant Others (IOI-HA/AI-SO). Process evaluation: dose-received, satisfaction, and benefit.
STUDY SAMPLE: The cRCT included 73 (SUPR) and 57 (care as usual) CPs. In the process evaluation study, 41 CPs (SUPR) participated.
RESULTS: There were no significant effects of SUPR for third-party disability (SOS-HEAR), the proxy report (IOI-HA-SO item "use"), and third-party disability (IOI-HA-SO items "satisfaction", and "quality of life"). SUPR-videos were watched by 15-22% of the CPs. SUPR materials were rated as moderately beneficial and useful.
CONCLUSIONS: Low baseline disability (floor effect) and low intervention dose-received may explain the findings. Directly targeting CPs rather than via their PHLs and providing intervention materials specifically for CPs may improve their engagement and contribute to SUPR's value supplementary to standard HA care.
DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with two arms (SUPR: Booklet, online videos; care as usual: no support) plus process evaluation. Measurements: baseline, and immediately-, six, and 12 months post-intervention. Outcomes: Significant Other Scale for Hearing Disability (SOS-HEAR), International Outcome Inventory for HAs/Alternative Interventions for Significant Others (IOI-HA/AI-SO). Process evaluation: dose-received, satisfaction, and benefit.
STUDY SAMPLE: The cRCT included 73 (SUPR) and 57 (care as usual) CPs. In the process evaluation study, 41 CPs (SUPR) participated.
RESULTS: There were no significant effects of SUPR for third-party disability (SOS-HEAR), the proxy report (IOI-HA-SO item "use"), and third-party disability (IOI-HA-SO items "satisfaction", and "quality of life"). SUPR-videos were watched by 15-22% of the CPs. SUPR materials were rated as moderately beneficial and useful.
CONCLUSIONS: Low baseline disability (floor effect) and low intervention dose-received may explain the findings. Directly targeting CPs rather than via their PHLs and providing intervention materials specifically for CPs may improve their engagement and contribute to SUPR's value supplementary to standard HA care.