The 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): a nonparametric item response analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies have analyzed the psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) using classical omnibus measures of scale quality. These analyses are sample dependent and do not model item responses as a function of the underlying trait level. The main objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the WHO-DAS II items and their options in discriminating between changes in the underlying disability level by means of item response analyses. We also explored differential item functioning (DIF) in men and women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The participants were 3615 adult general practice patients from 17 regions of Spain, with a first diagnosed major depressive episode. The 12-item WHO-DAS II was administered by the general practitioners during the consultation. We used a non-parametric item response method (Kernel-Smoothing) implemented with the TestGraf software to examine the effectiveness of each item (item characteristic curves) and their options (option characteristic curves) in discriminating between changes in the underliying disability level. We examined composite DIF to know whether women had a higher probability than men of endorsing each item.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Item response analyses indicated that the twelve items forming the WHO-DAS II perform very well. All items were determined to provide good discrimination across varying standardized levels of the trait. The items also had option characteristic curves that showed good discrimination, given that each increasing option became more likely than the previous as a function of increasing trait level. No gender-related DIF was found on any of the items.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>All WHO-DAS II items were very good at assessing overall disability. Our results supported the appropriateness of the weights assigned to response option categories and showed an absence of gender differences in item functioning.</p

Hearing aid effectiveness after aural rehabilitation - individual versus group (HEARING) trial: RCT design and baseline characteristics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hearing impairment is the most common body system disability in veterans. In 2008, nearly 520,000 veterans had a disability for hearing loss through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Changes in eligibility for hearing aid services, along with the aging population, contributed to a greater than 300% increase in the number of hearing aids dispensed from 1996 to 2006. In 2006, the VA committed to having no wait times for patient visits while providing quality clinically-appropriate care. One approach to achieving this goal is the use of group visits as an alternative to individual visits. We sought to determine: 1) if group hearing aid fitting and follow-up visits were at least as effective as individual visits, and 2) whether group visits lead to cost savings through the six month period after the hearing aid fitting. We describe the rationale, design, and characteristics of the baseline cohort of the first randomized clinical trial to study the impact of group versus individual hearing aid fitting and follow-up visits.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were recruited from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System Audiology Clinic. Eligible patients had no previous hearing aid use and monaural or binaural air-conduction hearing aids were ordered at the evaluation visit. Participants were randomized to receive the hearing aid fitting and the hearing aid follow-up in an individual or group visit. The primary outcomes were hearing-related function, measured with the first module of the Effectiveness of Aural Rehabilitation (Inner EAR), and hearing aid adherence. We tracked the total cost of planned and unplanned audiology visits over the 6-month interval after the hearing aid fitting.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A cohort of 659 participants was randomized to receive group or individual hearing aid fitting and follow-up visits. Baseline demographic and self-reported health status and hearing-related measures were evenly distributed across the treatment arms.</p> <p>Outcomes after the 6-month follow-up period are needed to determine if group visits were as least as good as those for individual visits and will be reported in subsequent publication.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>NCT00260663</p

Generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents:a systematic review of the literature

Background Health literacy is an important health promotion concern and recently children and adolescents have been the focus of increased academic attention. To assess the health literacy of this population, researchers have been focussing on developing instruments to measure their health literacy. Compared to the wider availability of instruments for adults, only a few tools are known for younger age groups. The objective of this study is to systematically review the field of generic child and adolescent health literacy measurement instruments that are currently available. Method A systematic literature search was undertaken in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycNET, ERIC, and FIS) on articles published between January 1990 and July 2015, addressing children and adolescents ?18 years old. Eligible articles were analysed, data was extracted, and synthesised according to review objectives. Results Fifteen generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents were identified. All, except two, are self-administered instruments. Seven are objective measures (performance-based tests), seven are subjective measures (self-reporting), and one uses a mixed-method measurement. Most instruments applied a broad and multidimensional understanding of health literacy. The instruments were developed in eight different countries, with most tools originating in the United States (n =?6). Among the instruments, 31 different components related to health literacy were identified. Accordingly, the studies exhibit a variety of implicit or explicit conceptual and operational definitions, and most instruments have been used in schools and other educational contexts. While the youngest age group studied was 7-year-old children within a parent-child study, there is only one instrument specifically designed for primary school children and none for early years. Conclusions Despite the reported paucity of health literacy research involving children and adolescents, an unexpected number of health literacy measurement studies in children?s populations was found. Most instruments tend to measure their own specific understanding of health literacy and not all provide sufficient conceptual information. To advance health literacy instruments, a much more standardised approach is necessary including improved reporting on the development and validation processes. Further research is required to improve health literacy instruments for children and adolescents and to provide knowledge to inform effective interventionspublishersversionPeer reviewe

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Internet-based interventions are emerging as an alternative way of delivering accessible healthcare for various conditions including hearing and balance disorders. A comprehensive review regarding the evidence-base of Internet-based interventions for auditory-related conditions is required to determine the existing evidence of their efficacy and effectiveness. The objective of the current protocol is to provide the methodology for a systematic review regarding the effects of Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. Method: This protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. Electronic database searches will include EBSCOhost, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register performed by two researchers. This will be complemented by searching other resources such as the reference lists for included studies to identify studies meeting the eligibility for inclusion with regard to study designs, participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for randomised trials will be used for the bias assessments in the included studies. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined. Discussion: The result of this systematic review will be of value to establish the effects of Internet-based interventions for hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. This will be of importance to guide future planning of auditory intervention research and clinical services by healthcare providers, researchers, consumers and stakeholders

Medicaid Hearing Aid Coverage For Older Adult Beneficiaries: A State-By-State Comparison

Age-related hearing loss affects nearly thirty million older adults in the United States and is associated with increased risk of several other adverse health outcomes. Although hearing aids are the most common efficacious treatment, Medicaid coverage of the aids is not federally mandated, and cost has been cited as a barrier to access. In this first (to our knowledge) comprehensive review of state-level Medicaid coverage of hearing aids and associated services for age-related hearing loss, we found that twenty-eight states offer some degree of coverage—which varies substantially with respect to extent and hearing loss eligibility requirements. Based on six criteria, we rated those states’ coverage as fair, good, or excellent. The remaining twenty-two states have no coverage, which leaves few options for their residents with hearing loss who face financial constraints. Policy makers at the state and federal levels should consider how to make care for age-related hearing loss more accessible, affordable, and equitable nationwide

Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized-controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%–17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas