A preliminary investigation into the use of alginates for the lifting and enhancement of fingermarks in blood

Recent studies have reported the use of alginate in the lifting and subsequent enhancement of footwear marks in blood. A study was set up to assess the use of such a method in the treatment of fingermarks in blood on a variety of porous, non-porous and semi-porous surfaces. Other variables included ageing of the fingermarks in blood and the application of chemicals prior to or post-alginate lifting. All different variations were compared to direct chemical treatment of the substrate. The results demonstrated that alginate is not compatible with certain substrates (e.g. glass and tile). On substrates that were compatible with alginate (e.g. fabric and paper), the enhanced fingermarks on the alginate cast and the enhanced fingermarks on the post-alginate substrates appeared, overall, inferior compared to direct chemical enhancement without the use of alginate. A further variation using water-based protein stains directly mixed with the alginate appeared to provide enhancement directly on the substrate as well as simultaneous lifting and enhancing the fingermarks in blood on the alginate cast

What do hearing healthcare professionals do to promote hearing aid use and benefit among adults? A systematic review

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence in relation to what hearing healthcare professionals do during hearing aid consultations and identifying which behaviours promote hearing aid use and benefit among adult patients. Design: Searches were performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool and Melnyk Levels of Evidence were used to assess quality and level of evidence of eligible studies. Behaviours of hearing healthcare professionals were summarised descriptively. Study Sample: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Twelve studies described behaviours of audiologists and five studies were intervention studies. Audiologists were typically task- or technically-oriented and/or dominated the interaction during hearing aid consultations. Two intervention studies suggested that use of motivational interviewing techniques by audiologists may increase hearing aid use in patients. Conclusions: Most studies of clinicians’ behaviours were descriptive, with very little research linking clinician behaviour to patient outcomes. The present review sets the research agenda for better-controlled intervention studies to identify which clinician behaviours better promote patient hearing aid outcomes and develop an evidence base for best clinical practice

Divergent effects of listening demands and evaluative threat on listening effort in online and laboratory settings

ObjectiveListening effort (LE) varies as a function of listening demands, motivation and resource availability, among other things. Motivation is posited to have a greater influence on listening effort under high, compared to low, listening demands.MethodsTo test this prediction, we manipulated the listening demands of a speech recognition task using tone vocoders to create moderate and high listening demand conditions. We manipulated motivation using evaluative threat, i.e., informing participants that they must reach a particular “score” for their results to be usable. Resource availability was assessed by means of working memory span and included as a fixed effects predictor. Outcome measures were indices of LE, including reaction times (RTs), self-rated work and self-rated tiredness, in addition to task performance (correct response rates). Given the recent popularity of online studies, we also wanted to examine the effect of experimental context (online vs. laboratory) on the efficacy of manipulations of listening demands and motivation. We carried out two highly similar experiments with two groups of 37 young adults, a laboratory experiment and an online experiment. To make listening demands comparable between the two studies, vocoder settings had to differ. All results were analysed using linear mixed models.ResultsResults showed that under laboratory conditions, listening demands affected all outcomes, with significantly lower correct response rates, slower RTs and greater self-rated work with higher listening demands. In the online study, listening demands only affected RTs. In addition, motivation affected self-rated work. Resource availability was only a significant predictor for RTs in the online study.DiscussionThese results show that the influence of motivation and listening demands on LE depends on the type of outcome measures used and the experimental context. It may also depend on the exact vocoder settings. A controlled laboratory settings and/or particular vocoder settings may be necessary to observe all expected effects of listening demands and motivation

Epidemiology of the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use: cross-sectional survey in a nationally representative UK adult population sample

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2019-12-05, accepted 2020-09-23, registration 2020-09-24, online 2020-10-09, pub-electronic 2020-10-09, collection 2020-12Publication status: PublishedFunder: National Institute for Health Research; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272Abstract: Background: Hearing loss is prevalent and disabling, yet little is known about the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use. The aim of the present research was to estimate the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use in a sample representative of the UK adult population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 10,401 UK adults who were representative of the population. Results: More than 7000 people (n = 7590, 73.0%) reported exposure to recreational noise excluding headphone and earphone use in the last 12 months. Just 158 people (2.1%) reported wearing hearing protection for every noisy recreational activity. Age (younger people) and beliefs of a behavioral (as opposed to genetic) cause of hearing loss were predictive of both higher recreational noise exposure and greater hearing protection use. Men were more exposed to recreational noise but women were less likely to use hearing protection. Conclusions: For the first time, the present research quantifies the recreational noise exposure and low levels of hearing protection use in a representative sample of the UK population. The biggest public health gains are likely to be achieved through interventions targeted at younger people and in explaining behavioral (as opposed to genetic) causes of hearing loss

Clinical Trials and Outcome Measures in Adults With Hearing Loss

From Frontiers via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: collection 2021, received 2021-06-29, accepted 2021-10-20, epub 2021-11-05Publication status: PublishedClinical trials are designed to evaluate interventions that prevent, diagnose or treat a health condition and provide the evidence base for improving practice in health care. Many health professionals, including those working within or allied to hearing health, are expected to conduct or contribute to clinical trials. Recent systematic reviews of clinical trials reveal a dearth of high quality evidence in almost all areas of hearing health practice. By providing an overview of important steps and considerations concerning the design, analysis and conduct of trials, this article aims to give guidance to hearing health professionals about the key elements that define the quality of a trial. The article starts out by situating clinical trials within the greater scope of clinical evidence, then discusses the elements of a PICO-style research question. Subsequently, various methodological considerations are discussed including design, randomization, blinding, and outcome measures. Because the literature on outcome measures within hearing health is as confusing as it is voluminous, particular focus is given to discussing how hearing-related outcome measures affect clinical trials. This focus encompasses how the choice of measurement instrument(s) affects interpretation, how the accuracy of a measure can be estimated, how this affects the interpretation of results, and if differences are statistically, perceptually and/or clinically meaningful to the target population, people with hearing loss

Cigarette smoking, passive smoking, alcohol consumption, and hearing loss

The objective of this large population-based cross-sectional study was to evaluate the association between smoking, passive smoking, alcohol consumption, and hearing loss. The study sample was a subset of the UK Biobank Resource, 164,770 adults aged between 40 and 69 years who completed a speech-in-noise hearing test (the Digit Triplet Test). Hearing loss was defined as speech recognition in noise in the better ear poorer than 2 standard deviations below the mean with reference to young normally hearing listeners. In multiple logistic regression controlling for potential confounders, current smokers were more likely to have a hearing loss than non-smokers (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.21). Among non-smokers, those who reported passive exposure to tobacco smoke were more likely to have a hearing loss (OR 1.28, 95 %CI 1.21–1.35). For both smoking and passive smoking, there was evidence of a dose-response effect. Those who consume alcohol were less likely to have a hearing loss than lifetime teetotalers. The association was similar across three levels of consumption by volume of alcohol (lightest 25 %, OR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.57–0.65; middle 50 % OR 0.62, 95 %CI 0.58–0.66; heaviest 25 % OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.61–0.70). The results suggest that lifestyle factors may moderate the risk of hearing loss. Alcohol consumption was associated with a protective effect. Quitting or reducing smoking and avoiding passive exposure to tobacco smoke may also help prevent or moderate age-related hearing loss

The impact of self-efficacy, expectations, and readiness on hearing aid outcomes

Objective: To examine the impact of self-efficacy and expectations for hearing aids, and readiness to improve hearing, on hearing aid outcome measures in first-time adult hearing aid users Design: A prospective, single centre design. Predictor variables measured at the hearing assessment included measures of self-efficacy, expectations and readiness to improve hearing. Outcome measures obtained at sixweek follow-up were the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile and Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. Study sample: A sample of 30 first-time adult hearing aid users were recruited through a public-sector funded audiology clinic. Results: When measured prior to hearing aid fitting, self-efficacy for hearing aids predicted satisfaction with hearing aids but was not related to other hearing aid outcomes. Expectations of hearing aids, in particular positive expectations, and readiness to improve hearing predicted outcomes for hearing aid satisfaction and benefit, although not hearing aid use. Hearing sensitivity was not correlated with hearing aid outcomes. Conclusions: These results suggest that assessment of expectations of hearing aids, and readiness to improve hearing, may be useful to help identify individuals attending audiology clinics who would most likely benefit from hearing aid provision

The impact of self-efficacy, expectations, and readiness on hearing aid outcomes

Objective: To examine the impact of self-efficacy and expectations for hearing aids, and readiness to improve hearing, on hearing aid outcome measures in first-time adult hearing aid users Design: A prospective, single centre design. Predictor variables measured at the hearing assessment included measures of self-efficacy, expectations and readiness to improve hearing. Outcome measures obtained at sixweek follow-up were the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile and Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. Study sample: A sample of 30 first-time adult hearing aid users were recruited through a public-sector funded audiology clinic. Results: When measured prior to hearing aid fitting, self-efficacy for hearing aids predicted satisfaction with hearing aids but was not related to other hearing aid outcomes. Expectations of hearing aids, in particular positive expectations, and readiness to improve hearing predicted outcomes for hearing aid satisfaction and benefit, although not hearing aid use. Hearing sensitivity was not correlated with hearing aid outcomes. Conclusions: These results suggest that assessment of expectations of hearing aids, and readiness to improve hearing, may be useful to help identify individuals attending audiology clinics who would most likely benefit from hearing aid provision

Using acoustic reflex threshold, auditory brainstem response and loudness judgments to investigate changes in neural gain following acute unilateral deprivation in normal hearing adults

Unilateral auditory deprivation induces a reduction in the acoustic reflex threshold (ART) and an increase in loudness. These findings have been interpreted as a compensatory change in neural gain, governed by changes in excitatory and inhibitory neural inputs. There is also evidence to suggest that changes in neural gain can be measured using the auditory brainstem response (ABR). The present study extended Munro et al. (2014) [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 315-322] by investigating changes after 4 days of unilateral earplug use to: (i) ART, (ii) ABR and (iii) loudness. Because changes may occur during the post-deprivation test session (day 4), ART measurements were taken 1 h and 2 h post-earplug removal. There was a significant reduction in ART in the treatment ear immediately after the removal of the earplug, which is consistent with a compensatory increase in neural gain. A novel finding was the significant return of ARTs to baseline within 2 h of earplug removal. A second novel finding was a significant decrease in the mean amplitude of ABR wave V in the treatment ear, but a significant increase in the control ear, both after 4 days of deprivation. These changes in the ABR are in the opposite direction to those predicted. We were unable to replicate the change in loudness reported in previous deprivation studies; however, the short period of earplug use may have contributed to this null finding