Frameworks for Change in Hearing Research: Valuing Qualitative Methods in the Real World

Community Perspectives on Hearing Loss in Rural Alaska

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to present an explanatory model of hearing loss in the Bering Strait region of Alaska in order to contextualize the results of a cluster randomized trial and propose implications for regional hearing-related health care.

DESIGN

To promote ecological validity, or the generalizability of trial findings to real world experiences, qualitative methods (focus groups and interviews) were used within a mixed methods cluster randomized trial evaluating school hearing screening and follow-up processes in 15 communities in the Bering Strait region of Alaska. Focus groups were held between April and August 2017, and semistructured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and August 2019. Convenience sampling was used for six of the 11 focus groups to capture broad community feedback. Purposive sampling was used for the remaining five focus groups and for all interviews to capture a variety of experiences with hearing loss. Audio recordings of focus groups and interviews were transcribed, and both notes and transcripts were deidentified. All notes and transcripts were included in the analysis. The constant comparative method was used to develop a codebook by iteratively moving between transcripts and preliminary themes. Researchers then used this codebook to code data from all focus groups and interviews using qualitative analysis software (NVIVO 12, QSR International) and conducted thematic analyses to distill the findings presented in this article.

RESULTS

Participants in focus groups (n = 116) and interviews (n = 101) shared perspectives in three domains: etiology, impact, and treatment of hearing loss. Regarding etiology, participants emphasized noise-induced hearing loss but also discussed infection-related hearing loss and various causes of ear infections. Participants described the impact of hearing loss on subsistence activities, while also detailing social, academic, and economic consequences. Participants described burdensome treatment pathways that are repetitive and often travel and time intensive. Communication breakdowns within these pathways were also described. Some participants spoke positively of increased access via onsite hearing health care services in "field clinics" as well as via telemedicine services. Others described weaknesses in these processes (infrequent field clinics and communication delays in telemedicine care pathways). Participants also described home remedies and stigma surrounding the treatment for hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centered health care requires an understanding of context. Explanatory models of illness are context-specific ways in which patients and their networks perceive and describe the experience of an illness or disability. In this study, we documented explanatory models of hearing loss to foster ecological validity and better understand the relevance of research findings to real-life hearing-related experiences. These findings suggest several areas that should be addressed in future implementation of hearing health care interventions elsewhere in rural Alaska, including management of repetitious treatments, awareness of infection-mediated hearing loss, mistrust, and communication breakdowns. For hearing-related health care in this region, these findings suggest localized recommendations for approaches for prevention and treatment. For community-based hearing research, this study offers an example of how qualitative methods can be used to generate ecologically valid (i.e., contextually grounded) findings.

Adults' with hearing loss perceived listening ability in daily communication: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Understanding how adults with hearing loss perceive their abilities when listening in daily communication situations is vital to understanding the functional listening challenges associated with hearing loss. The aim of this study is to explore how adults with hearing loss describe their own experiences of the processes, behaviours and components of listening in real-world communication through secondary analysis of published qualitative data.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies and qualitative components of mixed-methods studies will be conducted. Studies published in English will be identified through searching Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Embase and Google Scholar databases from inception to November 2021. Handsearching of the included studies' reference lists will be completed. Included articles will be assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills checklist for qualitative studies. Thematic synthesis will proceed as follows: (1) line-by-line coding to label concepts present in the 'results' or 'findings' section(s) of the included studies; (2) grouping of similar codes into descriptive themes; (3) development of higher level analytic themes to develop a new interpretation of the included studies' findings. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of QUALitative (CerQUAL) research approach will be used to establish the degree of confidence that may be placed in synthesis findings and results will be reported alongside the synthesis. Two reviewers will independently undertake screening for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal, analysis and GRADE-CERQual assessments. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As secondary data analysis of the published literature, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other research and clinical meetings. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO prospective database of systematic review.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020213389.

The Quest for Ecological Validity in Hearing Science: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Advance It

Ecological validity is a relatively new concept in hearing science. It has been cited as relevant with increasing frequency in publications over the past 20 years, but without any formal conceptual basis or clear motive. The sixth Eriksholm Workshop was convened to develop a deeper understanding of the concept for the purpose of applying it in hearing research in a consistent and productive manner. Inspired by relevant debate within the field of psychology, and taking into account the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework, the attendees at the workshop reached a consensus on the following definition: "In hearing science, ecological validity refers to the degree to which research findings reflect real-life hearing-related function, activity, or participation." Four broad purposes for striving for greater ecological validity in hearing research were determined: A (Understanding) better understanding the role of hearing in everyday life; B (Development) supporting the development of improved procedures and interventions; C (Assessment) facilitating improved methods for assessing and predicting ability to accomplish real-world tasks; and D (Integration and Individualization) enabling more integrated and individualized care. Discussions considered the effects of variables and phenomena commonly present in hearing-related research on the level of ecological validity of outcomes, supported by examples from a few selected outcome domains and for different types of studies. Illustrated with examples, potential strategies were offered for promoting a high level of ecological validity in a study and for how to evaluate the level of ecological validity of a study. Areas in particular that could benefit from more research to advance ecological validity in hearing science include: (1) understanding the processes of hearing and communication in everyday listening situations, and specifically the factors that make listening difficult in everyday situations; (2) developing new test paradigms that include more than one person (e.g., to encompass the interactive nature of everyday communication) and that are integrative of other factors that interact with hearing in real-life function; (3) integrating new and emerging technologies (e.g., virtual reality) with established test methods; and (4) identifying the key variables and phenomena affecting the level of ecological validity to develop verifiable ways to increase ecological validity and derive a set of benchmarks to strive for.