Alignment of Audiologists' Values With Best-Practice Standards: Insights From a National Survey.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY American Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00102
Katherine N Menon, Eric C Hoover
{"title":"Alignment of Audiologists' Values With Best-Practice Standards: Insights From a National Survey.","authors":"Katherine N Menon, Eric C Hoover","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Previous research documented the values of audiology through a qualitative content analysis of documents representing traditional, best-practice hearing health care. The primary objective of this study was to validate the existing list of audiology values. Through a nationwide survey, this study aimed to elicit the values of practicing audiologists, with a specific focus on the prescription and dispensing of amplification devices, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their priorities. Additionally, this study sought to identify any values missing from the original list and determine the rank order importance of these values, comparing this to the prioritization of values found in best-practice audiology documents. This comparison aimed to assess the alignment of recommended guidelines and real-world practices in hearing health care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An online survey was distributed to audiologists to elicit the prioritization of values from hearing health care providers. Participants were tasked with sorting and ranking 18 items, each representing a specific value in hearing health care, based on importance. Respondents were encouraged to suggest and rank the importance of additional values not included in the list. Audiologists were recruited from professional association mailing lists and direct contact. Respondent demographics were representative of U.S. audiologists. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret values suggested by audiologists. Kendall's rank distance test was used to compare values prioritization between audiologists and best-practice audiology documents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After filtering out incomplete or disqualifying responses, data from 289 audiologists across 46 states were analyzed. Additional values suggested by respondents aligned with existing values from best-practice documents; thus, no new values were added as a result of this study. A ranked list of values based on mean order of importance was elicited from U.S.-based audiologists. There was substantial agreement between survey results and the rank order of values found in best-practice audiology documents. A demographic subgroup analysis revealed a broad agreement among audiologists in the rank order of values.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study validated a comprehensive list of values in audiology and identified the rank order of values among a nationally representative sample of audiologists. The findings provide a foundation for future investigations into how these values influence decision-making processes for individuals with hearing difficulty. Addressing values conflicts as potential barriers to hearing health care usage can lead to solutions aligned with values of specific populations, ultimately improving the adoption and effectiveness of hearing health care interventions.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27478149.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Previous research documented the values of audiology through a qualitative content analysis of documents representing traditional, best-practice hearing health care. The primary objective of this study was to validate the existing list of audiology values. Through a nationwide survey, this study aimed to elicit the values of practicing audiologists, with a specific focus on the prescription and dispensing of amplification devices, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their priorities. Additionally, this study sought to identify any values missing from the original list and determine the rank order importance of these values, comparing this to the prioritization of values found in best-practice audiology documents. This comparison aimed to assess the alignment of recommended guidelines and real-world practices in hearing health care.

Design: An online survey was distributed to audiologists to elicit the prioritization of values from hearing health care providers. Participants were tasked with sorting and ranking 18 items, each representing a specific value in hearing health care, based on importance. Respondents were encouraged to suggest and rank the importance of additional values not included in the list. Audiologists were recruited from professional association mailing lists and direct contact. Respondent demographics were representative of U.S. audiologists. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret values suggested by audiologists. Kendall's rank distance test was used to compare values prioritization between audiologists and best-practice audiology documents.

Results: After filtering out incomplete or disqualifying responses, data from 289 audiologists across 46 states were analyzed. Additional values suggested by respondents aligned with existing values from best-practice documents; thus, no new values were added as a result of this study. A ranked list of values based on mean order of importance was elicited from U.S.-based audiologists. There was substantial agreement between survey results and the rank order of values found in best-practice audiology documents. A demographic subgroup analysis revealed a broad agreement among audiologists in the rank order of values.

Conclusions: This study validated a comprehensive list of values in audiology and identified the rank order of values among a nationally representative sample of audiologists. The findings provide a foundation for future investigations into how these values influence decision-making processes for individuals with hearing difficulty. Addressing values conflicts as potential barriers to hearing health care usage can lead to solutions aligned with values of specific populations, ultimately improving the adoption and effectiveness of hearing health care interventions.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27478149.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
听力学家的价值观与最佳实践标准的一致性:来自全国调查的启示。
研究目的:先前的研究通过对代表传统、最佳听力保健实践的文件进行定性内容分析,记录了听力学的价值观。本研究的主要目的是验证现有的听力学价值观清单。本研究旨在通过一项全国范围的调查,了解执业听力学家的价值观,重点关注扩声设备的处方和配发,以确保全面了解他们的优先事项。此外,本研究还试图找出原始清单中缺失的价值观,并确定这些价值观的重要性排序,同时将其与听力学最佳实践文件中的价值观优先级进行比较。这一比较旨在评估听力保健方面的推荐指南与实际做法的一致性:设计:我们向听力学家发放了一份在线调查,以了解听力保健提供者对价值的优先排序。参与者的任务是根据重要性对 18 个项目进行分类和排序,每个项目代表听力保健中的一个特定价值。我们还鼓励受访者提出清单中未包含的其他价值,并对其重要性进行排序。听力学家是从专业协会邮件列表和直接联系中招募的。受访者的人口统计学特征在美国听力学家中具有代表性。定性内容分析用于解释听力学家提出的价值观。肯德尔秩距检验用于比较听力学家与最佳实践听力学文件之间的价值优先级:在过滤掉不完整或不符合条件的回答后,对来自 46 个州 289 名听力学家的数据进行了分析。受访者提出的其他价值与最佳实践文件中的现有价值一致;因此,本研究没有增加新的价值。美国听力学家根据重要性的平均值排出了一份价值排序清单。调查结果与最佳实践听力学文件中的价值排序基本一致。人口统计分组分析表明,听力学家对价值观的排序有广泛的共识:本研究验证了听力学价值综合清单,并确定了具有全国代表性的听力学家样本的价值排序。研究结果为今后调查这些价值观如何影响听力障碍人士的决策过程奠定了基础。解决作为听力保健使用潜在障碍的价值观冲突,可以找到符合特定人群价值观的解决方案,最终提高听力保健干预措施的采用率和有效性。补充材料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27478149。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Audiology
American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Noise Exposure on Video Ocular Counter Roll Measurements. Influence of Matching the Processing Delays of Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid Devices for Bimodal Listeners on Speech Recognition in Noise. Unlocking the Potential of Pediatric Virtual Care: An e-Delphi Study on a Virtual Caregiver Participation Framework in Audiology. Alignment of Audiologists' Values With Best-Practice Standards: Insights From a National Survey. Assessment of a Hearing Aid Training Program for Health Care Workers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1