A European perspective on auditory processing disorder-current knowledge and future research focus

Current notions of \u201chearing impairment,\u201d as reflected in clinical audiological practice, do not acknowledge the needs of individuals who have normal hearing pure tone sensitivity but who experience auditory processing difficulties in everyday life that are indexed by reduced performance in other more sophisticated audiometric tests such as speech audiometry in noise or complex non-speech sound perception. This disorder, defined as \u201cAuditory Processing Disorder\u201d (APD) or \u201cCentral Auditory Processing Disorder\u201d is classified in the current tenth version of the International Classification of diseases as H93.25 and in the forthcoming beta eleventh version. APDs may have detrimental effects on the affected individual, with low esteem, anxiety, and depression, and symptoms may remain into adulthood. These disorders may interfere with learning per se and with communication, social, emotional, and academic-work aspects of life. The objective of the present paper is to define a baseline European APD consensus formulated by experienced clinicians and researchers in this specific field of human auditory science. A secondary aim is to identify issues that future research needs to address in order to further clarify the nature of APD and thus assist in optimumdiagnosis and evidence-based management. This European consensus presents the main symptoms, conditions, and specific medical history elements that should lead to auditory processing evaluation. Consensus on definition of the disorder, optimum diagnostic pathway, and appropriate management are highlighted alongside a perspective on future research focus

Using the refined ICF Linking Rules to compare the content of existing instruments and assessments: a systematic review and exemplary analysis of instruments measuring participation

Background: Existing instruments measuring participation may vary with respect to various aspects. This study aimed to examine the comparability of existing instruments measuring participation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by considering aspects of content, the perspective adopted and the categorization of response options. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify instruments that have been commonly used to measure participation. Concepts of identified instruments were then linked to the ICF following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Aspects of content, perspective adopted and categorization of response options were documented. Results: Out of 315 instruments identified in the full-text screening, 41 instruments were included. Concepts of six instruments were linked entirely to the ICF component Activities and Participation; of 10 instruments still 80% of their concepts. A descriptive perspective was adopted in most items across instruments (75%), mostly in combination with an intensity rating. An appraisal perspective was found in 18% and questions from a need or dependency perspective were least frequent (7%). Conclusion: Accounting for aspects of content, perspective and categorization of responses in the linking of instruments to the ICF provides detailed information for the comparison of instruments and guidance on narrowing down the choices of suitable instruments from a content point of view. Implications for Rehabilitation For clinicians and researchers who need to identify a specific instrument for a given purpose, the findings of this review can serve as a screening tool for instruments measuring participation in terms of the following: • Their content covered based on the ICF. • The perspective adopted in the instrument (e.g., descriptive, need/dependency or appraisal). • The categorization of their response options (e.g., intensity or frequency)

Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Information-seeking behaviour is necessary to improve knowledge on diabetes therapy and complications. Combined with other self-management skills and autonomous handling of the disease, it is essential for achieving treatment targets. However, a systematic review addressing this topic is lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and analyse existing knowledge of information-seeking behaviour: (1) types information-seeking behaviour, (2) information sources, (3) the content of searched information, and (4) associated variables that may affect information-seeking behaviour. METHODS: The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CCMed, ERIC, Journals@OVID, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Karlsruher virtueller Katalog (KvK) databases were searched. Publications dealing with information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus published up to June 2015 were included. A forward citation tracking was performed in September 2016 and June 2017. Additionally, an update of the two main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) was conducted, considering studies published up to July 2017. Studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded, as well as letters, short reports, editorials, comments and discussion papers. A study selection and the critical appraisal of the selected studies were performed independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted if any disagreement was found. Data extraction and content analysis were performed using selected dimensions of Wilson’s ‘model of information behaviour’. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. Five ‘types of information-seeking behaviour’ were identified, e.g. passive and active search. The ‘Internet’ and ‘healthcare professionals’ were the most frequently reported sources. ‘Diet’, ‘complications’, ‘exercise’ and ‘medications and pharmacological interactions’ were the most frequently identified content of information. Seven main categories including associated variables were identified, e.g. ‘socioeconomic’, ‘duration of DM’, and ‘lifestyle’. CONCLUSION: The systematic review provides a valuable overview of available knowledge on the information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus, although there are only a few studies. There was a high heterogeneity regarding the research question, design, methods and participants. Although the Internet is often used to seek information, health professionals still play an important role in supporting their patients’ information-seeking behaviour. Specific needs of people with diabetes must be taken into consideration

Correction to: Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

Correction During the production process for this article [1] some errors were introduced into Table 2. The correct version of Table 2 can be found below; the original article [1] has also been updated with the correct version of Table 2. BMC apologises to the authors and to readers for this error

Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to identify and analyse currently available knowledge on information needs of people with diabetes mellitus, also considering possible differences between subgroups and associated factors. Methods Twelve databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up until June 2015. Publications that addressed self-reported information needs of people with diabetes mellitus were included. Each study was assessed by using critical appraisal tools, e.g. from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Extraction and content analysis were performed systematically. Results In total, 1993 publications were identified and 26 were finally included. Nine main categories of information needs were identified, including ‘treatment-process’, ‘course of disease’, ‘abnormalities of glucose metabolism’ and ‘diabetes through the life cycle’. Differences between patient subgroups, such as type of diabetes or age, were sparsely analysed. Some studies analysed associations between information needs and factors such as participation preferences or information seeking. They found, for example, that information needs on social support or life tasks were associated with information seeking in Internet forums. Conclusion Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus, appear to be high, yet poorly investigated. Research is needed regarding differences between diverse diabetes populations, including gender aspects or changes in information needs during the disease course. Systematic review registration The review protocol has been registered at Prospero (CRD42015029610)

Additional file 1: of Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

The PRISMA statement (2009). (DOC 84 kb

Additional file 1: of Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis) Checklist 2009. Checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review. (DOC 145 kb