810
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Proposed norms for the Glasgow hearing-aid benefit profile (Ghabp) questionnaire

, &
Pages 345-351 | Received 19 Jun 2012, Accepted 09 Dec 2013, Published online: 03 Feb 2014
 

Abstract

Objective: To form a normative set of responses to the GHABP questionnaire from a large regional dataset. Design: Participants were asked to rate their hearing disability, handicap, hearing-aid (HA) use, HA benefit, HA satisfaction, and residual (aided) disability on a five-point scale for four situations: quiet conversation, television (TV) listening, noisy conversation, and group conversation. A subset of participants also estimated the time spent in these situations. Study sample: A group of 1574 adults with normal to profound hearing thresholds participated. Results: There was a significant relationship between increasing perceived disability and increasing hearing loss as given by the better-ear audiometric average (BEA). Responses for HA measures did not vary greatly with hearing loss: HA use was reported as high, whereas residual disability, HA benefit, and satisfaction were all reported on average as moderate. Conclusions: The results can be used as a normative dataset with which to evaluate individual responses in the clinic, where the GHABP provides a useful short-form questionnaire to engage the patient. The lack of systematic changes in hearing-aid related responses shows room for improvement in the benefit afforded by amplification.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. David Bagueley and two anonymous reviewers for their comments, Fiona Guy, Helen Lawson, Neil Kirk, David McShefferty, and Sharon Suller for their invaluable assistance in the collection of data, and Dr. Oliver Zobay for insightful suggestions on an earlier draft.

The Scottish Section of IHR is supported by intramural funding from the Medical Research Council (grant number U135097131) and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.