SLPOtherEar and hearing2020

Operationalization of the Brief ICF Core Set for Hearing Loss: An ICF-Based e-Intake Tool in Clinical Otology and Audiology Practice.

Lisette M van Leeuwen, Marieke Pronk, Paul Merkus and 3 others

PMID 33136629

WHAT IT FOUND

A self-report intake tool for adults with ear and hearing problems covers 39 functioning categories and 62 items. 10 experts and 11 patients found it relevant and mostly clear, but environmental items needed revision.

Key findings

01The current tool covers 39 ICF categories and contains 62 items, and patients took an average 16 min to complete it.

0210 stakeholders assessed the preliminary item list, and 11 patients completed the three-step pilot interview.

03Every patient encountered problems with at least one item, and environmental factor items were especially difficult because each was asked as both a barrier and a facilitator.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The patient pilot was small: 11 patients took part after 47 were invited, a 23% response rate, and the authors say these highly motivated patients may not represent average patients. The tool was developed and tested only in Dutch, in one Dutch hospital setting, so its wording, response options, and care-system assumptions may not fit other countries or services. This paper reports item development and content assessment, not a field test of whether the tool improves intake, patient-centered care, communication, or hearing-related outcomes. The current version is not suitable for measuring treatment effectiveness because many constructs use only one or two items, which is too little for reliable evaluation. The planned traffic light summary could not be used yet because meaningful cutoffs had not been established. The patient interviews were done by a team member, and the interview guide used closed-ended questions, which may have narrowed what patients said. Some personal factor choices were based on expert consensus in a small group and may be arbitrary, such as treating embarrassment as a personal factor rather than an emotional reaction.

Declared interests

The study was financially supported by Stichting Het Heinsius-Houbolt Foundation. The authors report no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that the e-intake tool improves patient-centered care or hearing-related outcomes. It was developed and content-assessed in a small expert and patient sample, and the authors say its feasibility and use in practice still need further evaluation.

Read it on PubMed →