Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing perceived listening effort in hearing loss: protocol for a systematic review
  1. Sarah E Hughes1,2,
  2. Frances L Rapport3,
  3. Isabelle Boisvert4,5,
  4. Catherine M McMahon4,5,
  5. Hayley A Hutchings1
  1. 1 Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
  2. 2 South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, UK
  3. 3 Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4 The HEARing CRC, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Department of Linguistics (Audiology Section), Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Mrs Sarah E Hughes; sarah.hughes{at}wales.nhs.uk

Abstract

Introduction In the UK, it is estimated that a disabling hearing loss (HL) affects 1 in 6 people. HL has functional, economic and social-emotional consequences for affected individuals. Intervention for HL focuses on improving access to the auditory signal using hearing aids or cochlear implants. However, even if sounds are audible and speech is understood, individuals with HL often report increased effort when listening.

Listening effort (LE) may be measured using self-reported measures such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are validated questionnaires completed by patients to measure their perceptions of their own functional status and well-being. When selecting a PROM for use in research or clinical practice, it is necessary to appraise the evidence of a PROM’s acceptability to patients, validity, responsiveness and reliability.

Methods and analysis A systematic review of studies evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs available to measure LE in HL will be undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science will be searched electronically. Reference lists of included studies, key journals and the grey literature will be hand-searched to identify further studies for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently complete title, abstract and full-text screening to determine study eligibility. Data on the characteristics of each study and each PROM will be extracted. Methodological quality of the included studies will be appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, the quality of included PROMs appraised and the credibility of the evidence assessed. A narrative synthesis will summarise extracted data.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical permission is not required, as this study uses data from published research. Dissemination will be through publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and the lead author’s doctoral dissertation. Findings may inform the selection of PROMs used to measure LE in HL.

  • audiology
  • patient-reported outcome measures
  • hearing loss
  • listening effort
  • systematic review
  • protocol

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors SEH is the guarantor. SEH and HAH contributed to the development of the research question, selection criteria, search strategy, risk of bias assessment strategy and data extraction strategy. SEH piloted the search strategy and data extraction forms. SEH drafted the protocol manuscript. HAH, FLR, IB and CMM provided critical revisions. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required. Systematic review, no patient involvement.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The full Medline (Ovid) search strategy has been submitted as an online supplementary file.