Objectives: Although hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists. In this article, we describe the preliminary validation of four distinct but related scales measuring hearing device-related stigma in different populations, including people who use hearing devices and those close to them.
Design: We preliminarily validated four measures for quantifying hearing device-related stigma in different populations that were previously developed and refined through a literature review, Delphi interviews, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. We preliminarily validated these measures through self-administered online surveys in a convenience sample in the United States. Among participants who use a hearing device and who either (a) self-identified as being d/DHH before they developed language (lifelong; n = 78) or (b) those who self-identified as having acquired a d/DHH identity after they developed language (acquired n = 71), we validated an anticipated hearing device-related stigma scale (d/DHHS-LE-HDA). We validated three scales that measure perceived hearing device-related stigma observed by parents of children who are d/DHH and who use a hearing device (n = 79) (d/DHHS-P-HDPO), care partners of adults who are d/DHH and use a hearing device (n = 108) (d/DHHS-CP-HDPO), and health care providers (n = 203) (d/DHHS-HCP-HDSH). Exploratory factor analysis assessed the reliability of each measure.
Results: Each of the four scales loaded onto one factor. Factor loadings for the eight-item scale measuring anticipated hearing device-related stigma among the two populations with lived experience ranged from 0.635 to 0.910, with an ordinal α of 0.93 in the lifelong d/DHH participants and 0.94 among the acquired d/DHH participants. The six-item scale of perceived stigma observed by parents had item loadings from 0.630 to 0.920 (α = 0.91). The nine-item scale of hearing device-related stigma observed by care partners had item loadings from 0.554 to 0.922 (α = 0.95). The eight-item scale of hearing device-related stigma reported by health care providers had item loadings from 0.647 to 0.941 (α = 0.89).
Conclusions: Preliminary validation results show that the four stigma measures perform well in their respective populations. The anticipated stigma scale performed similarly well for both lifelong d/DHH and acquired d/DHH, which suggests that it could perform well in different contexts. Future research should further validate the scales described here as well as measure hearing device-related stigma in different populations-including people who live in different geographic regions and people using different kinds of hearing devices-and evaluate the success of interventions developed to reduce hearing device-related stigma.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001539 | DOI Listing |
Ear Hear
September 2024
Social, Statistical, and Environmental Sciences, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Objectives: Although hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNat Commun
August 2024
Department of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Bimodal neuromodulation is emerging as a nonsurgical treatment for tinnitus. Bimodal treatment combining sound therapy with electrical tongue stimulation using the Lenire device is evaluated in a controlled pivotal trial (TENT-A3, NCT05227365) consisting of 6-weeks of sound-only stimulation (Stage 1) followed by 6-weeks of bimodal treatment (Stage 2) with 112 participants serving as their own control. The primary endpoint compares the responder rate observed in Stage 2 versus Stage 1, where a responder exceeds 7 points in the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg
October 2024
Hearing, Speech, and Language Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Objective: Describe the clinical profile of revision cochlear implantation (RCI) cases involving device manufacturer conversion (RCI), compare them to cases without manufacturer conversion (RCI), and classify the reasons for manufacturer conversion (MC).
Study Design: Retrospective case review.
Setting: Tertiary academic center.
HNO
August 2023
Klinik für Hals‑, Nasen‑, Ohrenkrankheiten, Plastische Operationen, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Background: The active transcutaneous bone conduction implant (tBCI; BONEBRIDGE™ BCI 601; MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) is fixed to the skull with two self-tapping screws in predrilled screw channels. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fixation with self-drilling screws instead of the self-tapping screws, in order to simplify the surgical procedure.
Materials And Methods: Nine patients (mean age 37 ± 16 years, range 14-57 years) were examined pre- and 12 months postoperatively for word recognition scores (WRS) at 65 dB SPL, sound-field (SF) thresholds, bone conduction thresholds (BC), health-related quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life, AQOL-8D questionnaire), and adverse events (AE).
J Perinatol
August 2023
George Washington University Hospital, Division of Neonatology, Children's National Hospital, Washington DC, USA.
Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is a safe, effective, non-invasive respiratory modality to deliver positive end expiratory pressure in neonates. Many studies have established its associated improved respiratory outcomes without increase in major morbidities associated with preterm neonates. In contrast, there is paucity in literature addressing complications such as nasal injury, abdominal distention, air leak syndromes (especially pneumothorax), hearing loss, heat and chemical burns, swallowing and aspiration of small components of the nasal interface and delay in escalation of respiratory support associated with the use of nCPAP, most frequently due to its incorrect use.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!