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.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 194.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.