Satisfação de usuários com aparelhos de amplificação sonora individual concedidos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde: revisão integrativa

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

RESUMO Objetivo Identificar a satisfação de usuários com os aparelhos de amplificação sonora individual (AASI) concedidos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Estratégia de pesquisa Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura, realizada nas bases de dados LILACS, SciELO, PubMed e Scopus, empregando os descritores hearing loss, public health policy, Unified Health System, public health, patient satisfaction e hearing aids. Critérios de seleção Foram selecionados artigos publicados a partir de 2004, sem restrição quanto ao idioma, envolvendo usuários adaptados pelo SUS. Excluíram-se publicações repetidas, resenhas, artigos de opinião, editoriais, teses e dissertações. Resultados Foram localizados 1011 estudos, dos quais, 24 foram incluídos. As pesquisas veicularam-se a partir de 2007, com predomínio na região Sudeste, por meio de abordagens quantitativas e, em grande parte, com amostras limitadas, compreendendo adultos e idosos. Os questionários de autoavaliação foram os recursos utilizados para avaliar a satisfação. Conclusão A maioria dos usuários revelou elevada satisfação com os AASI concedidos pelo SUS.

Translated abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose Identify user satisfaction with hearing aids (HAs) provided by the Unified Health System (UHS). Research strategy This is an integrative literature review, carried out in the LILACS, SciELO, PubMed and Scopus databases, using the following keywords: “hearing loss”, “public health policy”, “Unified Health System”, “public health”, “patient satisfaction” and “hearing aids”. Selection criteria Articles published from 2004 onwards, without language restrictions, involving users treated by the UHS were selected. Duplicate publications, reviews, opinion articles, editorials, theses and dissertations were excluded. Results A total of 1011 studies were found, 24 of which were included. The studies were published from 2007 onwards, with a predominance in the Southeast region, using quantitative approaches with limited samples comprising adults and older people. Self-assessment questionnaires were used to evaluate satisfaction. Conclusion Most users showed a high level of satisfaction with the HAs provided by the UHS.

Related collections

Most cited references 48

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit.

Robyn Cox, Genevieve Alexander (1995)

To develop and evaluate a shortened version of the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, to be called the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, or APHAB. The Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB) is a 66-item self-assessment, disability-based inventory that can be used to document the outcome of a hearing aid fitting, to compare several fittings, or to evaluate the same fitting over time. Data from 128 completed PHABs were used to select items for the Abbreviated PHAB. All subjects were elderly hearing-impaired who wore conventional analog hearing aids. Statistics of score distributions and psychometric properties of each of the APHAB subscales were determined. Data from 27 similar subjects were used to examine the test-retest properties of the instrument. Finally, equal-percentile profiles were generated for unaided, aided and benefit scores obtained from successful wearers of linear hearing aids. The APHAB uses a subset of 24 of the 66 items from the PHAB, scored in four 6-item subscales. Three of the subscales, Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise address speech understanding in various everyday environments. The fourth subscale, Aversiveness of Sounds, quantifies negative reactions to environmental sounds. The APHAB typically requires 10 minutes or less to complete, and it produces scores for unaided and aided performance as well as hearing aid benefit. Test-retest correlation coefficients were found to be moderate to high and similar to those reported in the literature for other scales of similar content and length. Critical differences for each subscale taken individually were judged to be fairly large, however, smaller differences between two tests from the same individual can be significant if the three speech communication subscales are considered jointly. The APHAB is a potentially valuable clinical instrument. It can be useful for quantifying the disability associated with a hearing loss and the reduction of disability that is achieved with a hearing aid.

0 comments Cited 174 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale.

Laura Cox, G. Alexander (1999)

To develop a self-report inventory to quantify satisfaction with hearing aids. The inventory was developed in several stages. To determine the elements that are most important to satisfaction for most people, we conducted structured interviews and then designed a questionnaire. Hearing aid owners responded to the questionnaire, indicating the relative importance of 14 different elements in their hearing aid satisfaction. Analyses indicated that the elements could be placed into four importance content areas. Trial satisfaction items were designed for each content area and submitted to focus groups to identify highly salient items as well as ambiguous items. A 25-item satisfaction questionnaire then was developed and disseminated to hearing aid owners. Results were obtained from 257 individuals. These data were analyzed to generate the final questionnaire. Fifteen items, divided into four subscales, were selected for the final Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire. The questionnaire yields a Global satisfaction score and a profile of subscale scores, which address Positive Effects, Service and Cost, Negative Features, and Personal Image. A preliminary evaluation of retest stability was conducted with 104 subjects. Ninety percent critical differences for the various scores ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 score intervals on a 7 point scale. The SADL scale is both brief enough to be clinically acceptable and comprehensive enough to provide a valid assessment of an inherently multidimensional variable. Additional assessment is necessary to refine understanding of its test-retest properties, explore validity issues, and determine clinical, research, and administrative applications of the data.

0 comments Cited 57 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

A ciência nas regiões brasileiras: evolução da produção e das redes de colaboração científica

Otávio SIDONE, Eduardo Haddad, Jesús Pascual Mena-Chalco (2016)

Resumo A recente evolução da ciência brasileira é caracterizada pelo crescimento acelerado da produção científica e pela intensificação da colaboração entre seus pesquisadores. Este trabalho tem por objetivo apresentar elementos sobre o papel da geografia na evolução da produção e colaboração científica no Brasil entre 1992 e 2009, por meio da identificação de padrões espaciais e da importância relativa das regiões em termos de produção, especialização científica e grau de interação colaborativa com outras regiões. Para este estudo, foram desenvolvidas (i) uma base de dados única, composta por mais de um milhão de pesquisadores e sete milhões de publicações científicas registradas na Plataforma Lattes, e (ii) diferentes redes de colaborações (coautoria) científicas entre regiões e estados brasileiros. Embora os principais resultados apontem para a heterogeneidade espacial da produção e colaboração científica, existem fortes evidências de um processo de desconcentração espacial ao longo do tempo associado à expansão das redes de colaboração e ao aumento da participação de autores das regiões cientificamente menos tradicionais, tais como Sul e Nordeste. Observam-se diferenças acentuadas entre as distribuições regionais da produção e as configurações espaciais das redes de cada área do conhecimento. Neste trabalho ressalta-se a importância das redes de colaboração científica no tocante à formulação de políticas de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação no Brasil no sentido de promover o incremento de qualidade e a desconcentração regional da atividade científica e, consequentemente, o desenvolvimento das regiões menos favorecidas.

0 comments Cited 39 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): acr

Title: Audiology - Communication Research

Abbreviated Title: Audiol., Commun. Res.

Publisher: Academia Brasileira de Audiologia (São Paulo, SP, Brazil )

ISSN (Electronic): 2317-6431

Publication date (Print and electronic): 2020

Volume: 25

Electronic Location Identifier: e2296

Affiliations

[03] Natal Rio Grande do Norte orgnameUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte orgdiv1Departamento de Odontologia Brazil

[02] Natal Rio Grande do Norte orgnameUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte orgdiv1Programa de Pós-graduação em Saúde Coletiva Brazil

[01] Natal Rio Grande do Norte orgnameUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte orgdiv1Programa Associado de Pós-graduação em Fonoaudiologia Brazil

Article

Publisher ID: S2317-64312020000100500 Publisher ID: S2317-6431(20)02500000500

DOI: 10.1590/2317-6431-2020-2296

SO-VID: 6e672d23-8e35-4ee4-ba35-c10f25fd5034

License:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

History

Date accepted : 02 June 2020

Date received : 25 January 2020

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 53, Pages: 0

Product

SciELO Brazil

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.