当成年人因听力损失而被开处助听器时，哪些因素对哪些人在什么情况下很重要？一项现实主义综述方案。

What factors are important to whom in what context, when adults are prescribed hearing aids for hearing loss? A realist review protocol.

机构信息

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, UK

Hearing Sciences, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 15;12(7):e059836. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059836.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059836

PMID:35840307

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9295669/

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Hearing aids are the gold standard treatment to help manage hearing loss. However, not everyone who needs them has them, and of those who do, a significant proportion of people do not use them at all, or use them infrequently. Despite literature reviews listing key barriers and enablers to the uptake and use of hearing aids, there is little evidence to describe how this varies by population and context. This review will describe when considering the provision of hearing aids for hearing loss in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The aims of this review are as follows: (1) To iteratively review and synthesise evidence surrounding the provision of hearing aids for hearing loss in adults. (2) To generate a theory-driven understanding of factors that are important, for whom, and in what context. (3) To develop a programme theory describing contexts that can support the provision of hearing aids to result in improved outcomes for adults with hearing loss. A scoping literature search will aid the development of programme theories, to explain how the intervention is expect to work, for whom, in what circumstances and in which contexts. We will locate evidence in the following databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMED, Web of Science with no date restrictions. A realist analytic approach will be used to refute and refine these initial programme theories. Throughout the review, relevant key stakeholders (eg, patients and clinicians) will be consulted to test and refine the programme theories.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee: (FMHS 95-0820) and the London Brent NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/PR/0259). The review will be reported according to the RAMESES guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021282049.

摘要

简介

助听器是帮助管理听力损失的金标准治疗方法。然而，并非每个需要助听器的人都有，而在那些有助听器的人中，相当一部分人根本不使用助听器，或者很少使用。尽管文献综述列出了影响助听器使用的关键障碍和促进因素，但几乎没有证据描述这些因素在不同人群和背景下的差异。本综述将描述在考虑为成年人提供助听器治疗听力损失时的情况。

方法和分析

本综述的目的如下：（1）迭代审查和综合与为成年人提供助听器治疗听力损失相关的证据。（2）生成一个理论驱动的理解，了解哪些因素重要，对谁重要，以及在什么背景下重要。（3）制定一个描述可以支持提供助听器以改善听力损失成年人结果的方案理论。一个范围广泛的文献搜索将有助于制定方案理论，以解释干预措施预计如何运作，对谁，在什么情况下以及在哪些背景下运作。我们将在以下数据库中查找证据：CINAHL、Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PubMed、Web of Science，无日期限制。将使用现实主义分析方法来反驳和完善这些初始方案理论。在整个审查过程中，将咨询相关的主要利益相关者（例如患者和临床医生），以测试和完善方案理论。