Speech and hearing professionals' perspectives on providing aural rehabilitation services to adults with hearing loss in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The occurrence of hearing loss increases markedly with age. Given that the population in Alberta is aging, hearing loss is expected to affect an increasing proportion of people in this province in the coming years. Research indicates that approximately half of adults in Canada with hearing loss are underserved. Aural rehabilitation (AR) services, which can include the assessment/screening of hearing, selection/fitting dispensing of hearing aids/listening devices, and post-fitting rehabilitation (such as adjustment counselling) are considered to be of benefit to adults with hearing loss. AR falls primarily within the scope of practice of three professional groups in Canada: audiologists, hearing-aid practitioners (HAPs) (also known as hearing-instrument practitioners), and speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Prior to conducting this project, very little was known about the delivery of AR services to adults in Alberta. As such, the present study is primarily an investigation of AR services provided by these groups to adults in the province. This thesis contains two studies. The purpose of Study I was to describe the current state of AR services for adults in Alberta. In order to do so, a survey was made available to all SLPs, audiologists, and HAPs registered to practice in Alberta. Other known providers of AR services (e.g., speechreading instructors and psychologists) were also invited to participate. Descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized to analyze survey data. The purpose of Study II was to describe the perceptions of SLPs regarding SLP provision of AR services. Within this study, interviews were conducted with SLPs. Interview data were analyzed using a qualitative description approach. Findings revealed that most audiologists and HAPs reported that they provide AR services to adult clients, while very few SLPs reported that they do so. A small group of other professionals, including psychologists, speechreading instructors, and AR specialists also reported that they provide AR services to this population. In terms of the services provided, the main focus of audiologists is reported to be the assessment of hearing, while HAPs reported that their focus is primarily on the selection/fitting/dispensing of hearing aids/listening devices. Members of each of the three main professional groups reported providing post-fitting rehabilitation services to adults. A comparison of professionals’ perceived roles/responsibilities in AR with the services they deliver in practice revealed that SLPs are not using the full-range of their knowledge and skills in AR to deliver services to adults. SLPs explained that barriers, such as their lack of confidence to deliver AR services, make it difficult to provide these services. If SLPs are to increase their involvement in delivering AR services to adults with hearing loss in the future, the following changes are recommended: greater interprofessional collaboration between SLPs and other providers of AR; opportunities for SLPs to practice hands-on AR skills within coursework, clinical practica, and post-professional training; and SLP governing body advocacy with regard to the importance of AR services (in particular post-fitting rehabilitation services) for the well-being of adults with hearing loss. SLPs have the potential to increase their involvement in the delivery of AR services to adults in Alberta, and as a result, better serve the growing population of adults with hearing loss in the province.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».