HEARING DISABILITY IN PEOPLE AGED 50-65 - EFFECTIVENESS AND ACCEPTABILITY OF REHABILITATIVE INTERVENTION
HEARING DISABILITY IN PEOPLE AGED 50-65 - EFFECTIVENESS AND ACCEPTABILITY OF REHABILITATIVE INTERVENTION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.300.6723.508
复制
发表时间：
1990-02-24
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
DAVIS, AC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
STEPHENS, SDG;CALLAGHAN, DE;DAVIS, AC
目的是确定检测50-65岁受试者听力障碍的最佳方法，以及该年龄组是否可接受康复干预。研究设计是对全科医生年龄-性别登记的患者进行问卷调查。使用了两种类型的问卷，一种是基于听力研究所问卷的封闭集方法，该方法已在试点研究中使用，另一种是由威尔士听力研究所开发的简化版问卷，基于开放集问题。问卷被发送了三次，并且在最后一次发送后两个月没有回应的患者被亲自联系。设置在Glyncorrwg和Blaengwynfi在Afan山谷，西格拉摩根（威尔士，英国）的两个一般做法。Glyncorrwg 271例（136男，135女），Blaengwynfi 333例（173男，160女），年龄50-65岁。所有回答问卷显示听力障碍的患者被邀请参加他们所在村庄的评估会议。在听力测试后，我们会提供适当的建议和安排，以便配戴助听器。干预前听力障碍的反应率和患病率以及干预前后助听器的持有情况。在三次发帖和亲自接触后，使用复杂问卷的Glyncorrwg的回复率为98% (266/271)，Blaengwynfi的回复率为97%（322/333）。听力障碍患病率分别为53%（141/266）和46%(148/322)，助听器使用率分别为7%（19/266）和8%（24/322）。干预后，Glyncorrwg助听器使用率为24% (64/266)，Blaengwynfi助听器使用率为22% (71/322)；六个月后，他们开始定期使用艾滋病药物。对Blaengwynfi的69名受试者进行的两份问卷的直接比较显示，两份问卷在检测到的残疾数量上没有显著差异。首次发放问卷时，两村听力障碍检出率为65%(189/289)，首次准备接受助听器者检出率为78% (72/92)；96%（88/92）的助听器接受者通过两次检出率。简单的问卷调查可以有效地检测50-65岁人群的听力障碍，对许多报告有听力障碍的人进行干预是可以接受的。从连续发布的回应率来看，两次发布对于发现那些愿意接受干预的人的回报是足够的。
The objective was to determine the best means of detecting hearing disability in subjects aged 50-65 and whether rehabilitative intervention is acceptable in this age group. The study design was a questionnaire survey of patients on general practice age-sex registers. Two types of questionnaire were used, one being based on the closed set approach of the Institute of Hearing Research questionnaire, which had been used in a pilot study, and the other being a simplified version of this questionnaire developed by the Welsh Hearing Institute and based on open set questions. Questionnaires were sent up to three times, and any patients who had not responded two months after the last posting were personally contacted. The setting was two general practices in Glyncorrwg and Blaengwynfi in the Afan valley, West Glamorgan (Wales, UK). 271 patients in Glyncorrwg (136 men, 135 women) and 333 patients in Blaengwynfi (173 men, 160 women) aged 50-65. All patients indicating hearing disability in answering the questionnaires were invited to attend for a evaluative session in their village. After audiometric testing advice and arrangements for fitting a hearing aid were offered as appropriate. Response rates and prevalence of hearing disability before intervention and of possession of earing aids before and after intervention. After three postings and personal contact the response rate was 98% (266/271) in Glyncorrwg, where the complex questionnaire was used, and 97% (322/333) in Blaengwynfi. The prevalence of hearing disability was respectively 53% (141/266) and 46% (148/322) and the prevalence of owning a hearing aid 7% (19/266) and 8% (24/322). After intervention the possession of hearing aids rose to 24% (64/266) in Glyncorrwg and 22% (71/322) in Blaengwynfi; six months later the aids were being used regularly. A direct comparison of the two questionnaires in 69 subjects from Blaengwynfi showed no significant differences in the amount of disability detected by each one. The first posting of questionnaires detected 65% (189/289) of the hearing disability in the two villages or 78% (72/92) of those prepared to accept hearing aids for the first time; 96% (88/92) of those whose accepted hearing aids were detected by two postings. Simple questionnaires are effective in detecting hearing disabilities in people aged 50-65, and intervention was acceptable in many of those who reported having difficulties in hearing. The response rates from successive postings suggest that two postings are sufficient in terms of the return in detecting those who will accept intervention.