Evaluation of the impact of hearing loss in adults: Validation of a quality of life questionnaire |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. AP–HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service d’ORL, Otologie, Implants Auditifs et Chirurgie de la Base du Crâne, 47–83, boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France;2. Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie Paris 6, Inserm, Unité Réhabilitation Chirurgicale Mini-invasive et Robotisée de l’Audition, 75013 Paris, France;3. Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Diderot Paris 7, Inserm, Unité Infection Antimicrobiens, Modélisation, Évolution IAME, 75018 Paris, France |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesThe impact of hearing loss and of auditory rehabilitation (hearing aid, cochlear implant) on quality of life is a crucial issue. Commonly used questionnaires to assess quality of life in these patients (Nijmegen, APHAB, GBI) are time-consuming, difficult for patients to fill out, and show poor sensitivity to small improvements or deterioration. The objective of the present study was to validate a dedicated quality of life scale for hearing-impaired adults with or without auditory rehabilitation.Material and methodsERSA (Évaluation du Retentissement de la Surdité chez l’Adulte: Evaluation of the Impact of Hearing Loss in Adults) is a self-administered questionnaire. It is divided into 4 domains, each comprising 5 questions graded from 1 to 10. The questions are simple, and formulated so patients will answer according to how they feel at the actual time of the session. Test-retest reliability was measured in 38 patients. Internal coherence and validity against the APHAB questionnaire as gold standard and in relation to hearing performance were measured in 122 patients at auditory assessment. Sensitivity to change in hearing was measured in 36 cochlear implant patients, before and 6 or 12 months after implantation.ResultsTest-retest reliability was very satisfactory (ρ = 0.88). Internal coherence was good for all questions. External validity, comparing ERSA to APHAB scores in the same non-implanted hearing-impaired patients, was good (ρ = 0.52). Additionally, ERSA scores correlated with hearing performance in adverse conditions (monosyllabic words: ρ = 0.22; sentences in noise: ρ = 0.19). In patients tested before and after cochlear implantation, improvement in hearing performance in silence and in noise correlated with an improvement in ERSA score (ρ = 0.37 to 0.59, depending on the test), but not to GBI score.ConclusionThe ERSA questionnaire is easy and quick to use, reliable, and sensitive to change in hearing performance after cochlear implantation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Hearing loss Evaluation Auditory rehabilitation Cochlear implant |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
