Development and Preliminary Validation of Scales to Measure Enacted, Perceived, and Experienced Hearing Loss Stigma in Health Care Settings.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Qualitative evidence suggests that stigma experienced by people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) can reduce willingness to engage with health services. Quantitative evidence remains lacking, however, about how health care providers (HCPs) perceive societal stigma toward people who are d/DHH, how HCPs might enact d/DHH stigma within provider-patient encounters, and what patients who are d/DHH share with providers about those patients' perceptions and experiences of stigma. Such quantitative evidence would allow HCPs to understand if and how stigma influences hearing health decisions made by people who are d/DHH. It could also shape practices to reduce d/DHH stigma within clinical encounters and guide providers in considering stigma as a driving force in their patients' hearing health care decisions. Building that evidence base requires validated quantitative measures. In response, the present study initiated an iterative process toward developing and preliminarily validating HCP self-report measures for different forms of d/DHH stigma. These measures draw upon HCPs' own perspectives, as well as their reports of secondhand information about stigma shared during clinical conversations. We developed and preliminary validated four measures: (1) provider-perceived stigma (HCPs' perceptions of the existence of negative attitudes and stereotypes toward d/DHH individuals in society), (2) provider-enacted stigma (self-reported subtle or indirect acts of stigma HCPs might commit during clinical encounters), (3) secondhand patient-experienced stigma (external acts of stigma reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters), and (4) secondhand patient-perceived stigma (perceptions of negative attitudes and stereotypes reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters). DESIGN Scale items were extracted from a comprehensive literature review of stigma measures. Question stems and individual items were adapted for HCPs, cognitively tested on 5 HCPs, and pretested with 30 HCPs. The 4 scales were then validated on a sample of primary care providers and hearing care specialists (N = 204) recruited through an online survey. All data were collected in the United States. RESULTS We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the four proposed d/DHH stigma HCP stigma scales. Scale items loaded satisfactorily with ordinal alphas ranging between 0.854 and 0.944. CONCLUSIONS The four measures developed and preliminarily validated in this study can provide opportunities for HCPs to develop a more nuanced understanding of stigma experienced and perceived by their patients who are d/DHH and how that stigma manifests across social contexts, including health care settings. Further, the ability to assess forms of d/DHH stigma in clinical encounters, as well as their association with patient disengagement and resistance to advanced hearing care, could lead to innovative stigma-reduction interventions. Such interventions could then be evaluated using the measures from this article and then applied to clinical practice. We envision these measures being further refined, adapted, and tested for a variety of health care contexts, including primary care settings where hearing difficulties may first be identified and in hearing health care settings where audiologic rehabilitation is initiated.