Stages of change in adults who have failed an online hearing screening
Ariane Laplante-Lévesque1, K Jonas Brännström, Elisabeth Ingo
11Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; 2Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark; 3Department of Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; and 4Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Objectives:
Hearing screening has been proposed to promote help-seeking and rehabilitation in adults with hearing impairment. However, some longitudinal studies point to low help-seeking and subsequent rehabilitation after a failed hearing screening (positive screening result). Some barriers to help-seeking and rehabilitation could be intrinsic to the profiles and needs of people who have failed a hearing screening. Theories of health behavior change could help to understand this population. One of these theories is the transtheoretical (stages-of-change) model of health behavior change, which describes profiles and needs of people facing behavior changes such as seeking help and taking up rehabilitation. According to this model, people go through distinct stages toward health behavior change: precontemplation, contemplation, action, and finally, maintenance. The present study describes the psychometric properties (construct validity) of the stages of change in adults who have failed an online hearing screening. Stages of change were measured with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA). Principal component analysis is presented, along with cluster analysis. Internal consistency was investigated. Finally, relationships between URICA scores and speech-in-noise recognition threshold, self-reported hearing disability, and self-reported duration of hearing disability are presented.
Design:
In total, 224 adults who had failed a Swedish online hearing screening test (measure of speech-in-noise recognition) completed further questionnaires online, including the URICA.
Results:
A principal component analysis identified the stages of precontemplation, contemplation, and action, plus an additional stage, termed preparation (between contemplation and action). According to the URICA, half (50%) of the participants were in the preparation stage of change. The contemplation stage was represented by 38% of participants, while 9% were in the precontemplation stage. Finally, the action stage was represented by approximately 3% of the participants. Cluster analysis identified four stages-of-change clusters: they were named decision making (44% of sample), participation (28% of sample), indecision (16% of sample), and reluctance (12% of sample). The construct validity of the model was good. Participants who reported a more advanced stage of change had significantly greater self-reported hearing disability. However, participants who reported a more advanced stage of change did not have a significantly worse speech-in-noise recognition threshold or reported a significantly longer duration of hearing impairment.
Conclusions:
The additional stage this study uncovered, and which other studies have also uncovered, preparation, highlights the need for adequate guidance for adults who are yet to seek help for their hearing. The fact that very few people were in the action stage (approximately 3% of the sample) signals that screening alone is unlikely to be enough to improve help-seeking and rehabilitation rates. As expected, people in the later stages of change reported significantly greater hearing disability. The lack of significant relationships between stages-of-change measures and speech-in-noise recognition threshold and self-reported duration of hearing disability highlights the complex interplay between impairment, disability, and behaviors in adults who have failed an online hearing screening and who are yet to seek help.
