Abstract
Objective
To canvas the views of Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians regarding group audiological rehabilitation practices.
Design
A national cross-sectional self-report survey. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
Study sample
Sixty-two Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians, with experience working in an adult rehabilitation setting.
Results
Clinicians appeared to positively view the provision of group audiological rehabilitation services, yet were limited in their ability to deliver these services due to organisational barriers. Although some organisational barriers were non-modifiable by the clinician (such as group AR services not prioritised within their workplace, a lack of support from colleagues/managers, lack of resources, and a lack of funding for the delivery of group AR services), others were within the clinicians’ ability to change (such as habit formation for recommending these services during clinical appointments). Participants expressed a desire for resources to assist them in delivering group AR, including downloadable lesson plans and information sheets for clients, clinician training videos and client educational videos. Clinicians called for increased diversity in program offerings, specifically relating to the emotional, relational and social impacts of hearing loss.
Conclusions
These results provide a framework for the development of interventional studies to increase the utilisation of group audiological rehabilitation services.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Audiology Australia and ACAud with participant recruitment and the participants for devoting their time to this study. Gabrielle Saunders was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Rebecca Bennett is funded by a Raine/Cockell Fellowship, through the University of Western Australia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).