Speech and hearing professionals' perspectives on providing aural rehabilitation services to adults with hearing loss in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".