Defining a Patient-Centred Core Outcome Domain Set for the Assessment of Hearing Rehabilitation With Clients and Professionals
- PMID: 35592258
- PMCID: PMC9110701
- DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.787607
Defining a Patient-Centred Core Outcome Domain Set for the Assessment of Hearing Rehabilitation With Clients and Professionals
Abstract
Background: A variety of outcome domains are currently measured for the assessment of hearing rehabilitation. To date, there is no consensus about which outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured. In addition, most studies seeking to develop core outcome sets and measures for hearing rehabilitation services have primarily focussed on the opinions and expertise of researchers, and, to a lesser extent, clinicians, rather than also involving clients of those services. The principles of experience-based co-design suggest that health services, researchers, and policymakers should come together with clients and their families to design health services and define what metrics should be used for their success.
Objectives: This study aimed to seek views and consensus from a range of key stakeholders to define which client-centred self-report outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured, in a national publicly funded hearing rehabilitation scheme. In addition, the study aimed to identify current and future potential mechanisms and systems to standardise the collection of data and reporting of outcomes, to enable comparison across clients and hearing service providers.
Methods: Two stakeholder groups participated in a three-round online Delphi process: (1) 79 professional stakeholders involved in the delivery of hearing services in Australia, and (2) 64 hearing rehabilitation services' clients identified by not-for-profit consumer organisations. An initial set of in-person workshops scoped the key issues upon which to develop the initial open-ended questions and subsequent Likert-scale statements addressing these issues. These statements were then distributed to both groups in an online survey. The respondent ratings were summarised, and the summary was returned to respondents along with a second round of the survey. This process was then repeated once more. The five most important outcome domains from both groups were then combined, and a consensus workshop of seven professionals and three client advocates agreed on the top four ranked domains.
Results: A range of potential outcome domains were identified as relevant indicators of successful hearing rehabilitation. Communication ability, personal relationships, wellbeing, and participation restrictions were identified as a core outcome domain set that should be measured as a minimum for patients receiving hearing rehabilitation. There was little agreement on the preferred timepoints for collection of outcome measures, with respondents expressing the view that this should be established by research once a set of outcome measures has been selected. However, there was broad agreement that measurements of these domains should be collected at baseline (before the provision of hearing rehabilitation) and no earlier than 3 months following the completion of rehabilitation. Potential benefits and issues with the development of a national outcomes database/collection system were also identified and prioritised, with participants highlighting the importance of valid, high-quality, trustworthy, and comprehensive data collection.
Conclusion: These results provide a Core Outcome Domain Set for the self-reported evaluation of hearing rehabilitation and provide important background information for the design of methods to implement them across hearing healthcare systems. However, the wide range of outcome domains identified as potentially providing important additional information and the lack of specific measures to address these domains strongly suggest that there is still more research to be done. Ongoing stakeholder engagement will continue to be vital for future implementation. In addition, further research is required to determine the optimal time following hearing rehabilitation to utilise any particular outcome measure.
Keywords: audiology; correction of hearing impairment; hearing loss; outcome assessment (health care); patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Copyright © 2022 Allen, Hickson and Ferguson.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness.Trials. 2022 Sep 8;23(1):764. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06702-1. Trials. 2022. PMID: 36076299 Free PMC article.
-
The participatory development of a national core set of person-centred diabetes outcome constructs for use in routine diabetes care across healthcare sectors.Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Sep 10;7(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00309-7. Res Involv Engagem. 2021. PMID: 34507618 Free PMC article.
-
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27819974
-
Informing the NHS Outcomes Framework: evaluating meaningful health outcomes for children with neurodisability using multiple methods including systematic review, qualitative research, Delphi survey and consensus meeting.Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 May. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 May. PMID: 25642547 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
Reported Hearing Outcome Measures Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Scoping Review.J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2023 Feb 22;85(2):123-130. doi: 10.1055/a-2021-8762. eCollection 2024 Apr. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2023. PMID: 38449586 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implant Sound Processor Upgrades in Older Adults: Outcomes from a Large Australian Multicenter Study.J Clin Med. 2025 May 28;14(11):3765. doi: 10.3390/jcm14113765. J Clin Med. 2025. PMID: 40507527 Free PMC article.
-
A Perspective on Auditory Wellness: What It Is, Why It Is Important, and How It Can Be Managed.Trends Hear. 2024 Jan-Dec;28:23312165241273342. doi: 10.1177/23312165241273342. Trends Hear. 2024. PMID: 39150412 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Behavior Change in Chronic Health: Reviewing What We Know, What Is Happening, and What Is Next for Hearing Loss.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Apr 21;20(8):5605. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20085605. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023. PMID: 37107887 Free PMC article.
-
Core outcomes for the evaluation of new healthcare programmes - a modified Delphi study.BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 May 27;25(1):758. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12897-1. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025. PMID: 40426173 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Access Economics Pty Ltd (2015). Listen Hear! The Economic Impact and Cost of Hearing Loss in Australia. Australia: Access Economics.
-
- Akeroyd M. A., Wright-Whyte K., Holman J. A., Whitmer W. M. (2015). A comprehensive survey of hearing questionnaires: how many are there, what do they measure, and how have they been validated? Trials 16:26.
-
- Amodio S., D’Ambrosio A., Siciliano R. (2016). Accurate algorithms for identifying the median ranking when dealing with weak and partial rankings under the Kemeny axiomatic approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 249 667–676. 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.048 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources