Klyn Niall A M, Letendre Claire, Shrestha Neeha, Lambert Bruce L, Dhar Sumitrajit
Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Department of Communication Studies and Center for Communication and Health, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Int J Audiol. 2021 Feb;60(2):133-139. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1805129. Epub 2020 Aug 20.
The audiogram is frequently used by hearing specialists communicate test results to non-specialists, such as physicians. However, it relies on uncommon terminology and interpreting unusual graphical elements to extract information. In this study, we examine whether the audiogram can be accurately interpreted by specialists and non-specialists.
We used an online questionnaire to assess the interpretability of an audiogram by audiologists and primary-care physicians. Participants viewed a sample audiogram and submitted their answers via an online survey system.
We recruited actively practicing primary care physicians ( = 100) and actively practicing audiologists ( = 67). We only accepted respondents from the United States.
The audiogram was not easily interpreted by physicians, with a median score of 4/9. Fewer than 25% could accurately report a threshold correctly. Audiologists were more accurate than physicians (median score 7/9, Wilcoxon two-sample < 0.001, = 0.648).
The audiogram is difficult for non-specialists to interpret. Clinicians are advised to supplement or supplant the audiogram in interprofessional communication. The development of tools to facilitate interprofessional communication between audiologists and physicians could have positive effects on physician awareness of hearing loss, and even downstream influences on patient behaviour and outcomes.
听力图经常被听力专家用于向非专家（如医生）传达测试结果。然而，它依赖于不常见的术语和解读不寻常的图形元素来提取信息。在本研究中，我们考察了听力图是否能被专家和非专家准确解读。
我们使用在线问卷来评估听力学家和初级保健医生对听力图的可解读性。参与者查看一份听力图样本，并通过在线调查系统提交答案。
我们招募了在职的初级保健医生（n = 100）和在职的听力学家（n = 67）。我们只接受来自美国的受访者。
医生不容易解读听力图，中位数得分为4/9。不到25%的人能正确准确地报告阈值。听力学家比医生更准确（中位数得分7/9，Wilcoxon双样本检验P < 0.001，效应量 = 0.648）。
非专家难以解读听力图。建议临床医生在跨专业交流中补充或替代听力图。开发有助于听力学家和医生之间跨专业交流的工具可能会对医生对听力损失的认知产生积极影响，甚至对患者行为和结果产生下游影响。
