Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 21;9(11):e032178.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032178.

Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership

Affiliations

Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership

Kathryn Fackrell et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine research priorities in hyperacusis that key stakeholders agree are the most important.

Design/setting: A priority setting partnership using two international surveys, and a UK prioritisation workshop, adhering to the six-staged methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance.

Participants: People with lived experience of hyperacusis, parents/carers, family and friends, educational professionals and healthcare professionals who support and/or treat adults and children who experience hyperacusis, including but not limited to surgeons, audiologists, psychologists and hearing therapists.

Methods: The priority setting partnership was conducted from August 2017 to July 2018. An international identification survey asked respondents to submit any questions/uncertainties about hyperacusis. Uncertainties were categorised, refined and rephrased into representative indicative questions using thematic analysis techniques. These questions were verified as 'unanswered' through searches of current evidence. A second international survey asked respondents to vote for their top 10 priority questions. A shortlist of questions that represented votes from all stakeholder groups was prioritised into a top 10 at the final prioritisation workshop (UK).

Results: In the identification survey, 312 respondents submitted 2730 uncertainties. Of those uncertainties, 593 were removed as out of scope, and the remaining were refined into 85 indicative questions. None of the indicative questions had already been answered in research. The second survey collected votes from 327 respondents, which resulted in a shortlist of 28 representative questions for the final workshop. Consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities for future research, including identifying causes and underlying mechanisms, effective management and training for healthcare professionals.

Conclusions: These priorities were identified and shaped by people with lived experience, parents/carers and healthcare professionals, and as such are an essential resource for directing future research in hyperacusis. Researchers and funders should focus on addressing these priorities.

Keywords: James Lind Alliance; assessment; hyperacusis; management; research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: DJH is vice-chair of the British Society of Audiology. KF is a member of the British Society of Audiology Tinnitus and Hyperacusis special interest group. DMB is president of the British Tinnitus Association. NW is an employee of the British Tinnitus Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The six-stage methodological process for the hyperacusis priority setting partnership.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of prioritisation process from submitted research questions to final prioritisation. *One additional question on dementia with lower ranking was included at final workshop as per a priori criteria set by steering group.

References

    1. McFerran D. Misophonia and Phonophobia : Baguley DM, Fagelson M, Tinnitus: clinical and research perspectives. San Diego: Plural Publishing Inc, 2016: 245–60.
    1. Kumar S, Tansley-Hancock O, Sedley W, et al. The brain basis for Misophonia. Curr Biol 2017;27:527–33. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.048 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moore B. Cochlear hearing loss: physiological, psychological and technical issues. 2nd edn Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2007.
    1. Baguley DM. Hyperacusis. J R Soc Med 2003;96:582–5. 10.1177/014107680309601203 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hall AJ, Humphriss R, Baguley DM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for reduced sound tolerance (hyperacusis) in children. Int J Audiol 2016;55:135–41. 10.3109/14992027.2015.1092055 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources