Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
LOOKING FOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE: CHARACTERISTICS AND EXPECTATIONS OF AUSTRALIANS ON A WAITLIST FOR A HEARING ASSISTANCE DOG
1
School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia
2
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2020-04-21
Final revision date: 2020-06-30
Acceptance date: 2020-06-30
Publication date: 2020-08-24
Corresponding author
Carlie Driscoll
School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, -, 4072, Brisbane, Australia
School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, -, 4072, Brisbane, Australia
J Hear Sci 2020;10(2):40-54
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Hearing assistance dogs not only alert their hearing-impaired owners to environmental sounds but may also improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, audiologists rarely recommend this service, potentially due to a dearth of associated literature. This study explores the demographic and audiological characteristics, general health, socio-emotional functioning, and expectations of persons seeking a hearing dog.
Material and methods:
This prospective cohort study of 23 respondents from the 2019 Australian Lions hearing dog waitlist utilized a written survey method.
Results:
Respondents were predominately female (78%), financially stable (91%), had previous pet ownership experience (91%), a self-reported severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss (92%), and were regular hearing device users (87%). Respondents reported substantial social and emotional limitations. Overall, the health function of respondents was below that of the general population. Social function was also comparatively impaired. Most respondents strongly agreed that the hearing dog should be “a companion” and “a living thing to love.”
Conclusions:
Respondents were demographically varied but were regular hearing-device users, with significant social, emotional, and health limitations. In addition to being alerted to environmental sounds, respondents expected the hearing dog to serve a broad socio-emotional function.
Hearing assistance dogs not only alert their hearing-impaired owners to environmental sounds but may also improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, audiologists rarely recommend this service, potentially due to a dearth of associated literature. This study explores the demographic and audiological characteristics, general health, socio-emotional functioning, and expectations of persons seeking a hearing dog.
Material and methods:
This prospective cohort study of 23 respondents from the 2019 Australian Lions hearing dog waitlist utilized a written survey method.
Results:
Respondents were predominately female (78%), financially stable (91%), had previous pet ownership experience (91%), a self-reported severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss (92%), and were regular hearing device users (87%). Respondents reported substantial social and emotional limitations. Overall, the health function of respondents was below that of the general population. Social function was also comparatively impaired. Most respondents strongly agreed that the hearing dog should be “a companion” and “a living thing to love.”
Conclusions:
Respondents were demographically varied but were regular hearing-device users, with significant social, emotional, and health limitations. In addition to being alerted to environmental sounds, respondents expected the hearing dog to serve a broad socio-emotional function.
REFERENCES (62)
1.
Hearing Care Industry Association. The social and economic cost of hearing loss in Australia. Canberra, Australia; 2017.
2.
Hogan A, O’Loughlin K, Davis A, Kendig H. Hearing loss and paid employment: Australian population survey findings. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48(3): 117–22.
3.
Grenness C, Hickson L, Laplante-Lévesque A, Davidson B. Patient-centred care: a review for rehabilitative audiologists. Int J Audiol, 2014; 53(1): 60–7.
4.
Boisvert I, Clemesha J, Lundmark E, Crome E, Barr C, Mc-Mahon CM. Decision-making in audiology: balancing evidence-based practice and patient-centered care. Trends Hear, 2017; 21: 1–14.
5.
Australian Lions Hearing Dogs. About Australian Lions Hearing Dogs. 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://hearingdogs.asn.au/abo....
6.
Gravrok J, Howell T, Bendrups D, Bennett P. Thriving through relationships: assistance dogs’ and companion dogs’ perceived ability to contribute to thriving in individuals with and without a disability. Disabil Rehab Assistive Tech, 2019; 1(1): 1–8.
7.
Bergin B. Companion animals for the handicapped. In: Edney BFA (Ed.), Interrelations between people and pets. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1981, 191–236.
8.
Audrestch HM, Whelan CT, Grice D, Asher L, England GCW, Freeman SL. Recognizing the value of assistance dogs in society. Disabil Health J, 2015; 8(4): 469–74.
9.
Guest CM, Collis GM, McNicholas J. Hearing dogs: A longitudinal study of social and psychological effects on deaf and hard-of-hearing recipients. J Deaf Studies Deaf Ed, 2006; 11(2): 252–61.
10.
Hall S, Macmichael J, Turner A, Mills D. A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: a pilot study. Health QOL Outcomes, 2017; 15(1): 59–68.
11.
Hart LA, Zasloff RL, Benfatto AM. The socializing role of hearing dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1996; 47(1–2): 7–15.
12.
Lundqvist M, Levin L-A, Roback K, Alwin J. The impact of service and hearing dogs on health-related quality of life and activity level: a Swedish longitudinal intervention study. BMC Health Serv Res, 2018; 18(1): 497–506.
13.
Valentine D, Kiddoo M, Lafleur B. Psychosocial implications of service dog ownership for people who have mobility or hearing impairments. Soc Work Health Care, 1993; 19(1): 109–25.
14.
Furuta S, Nakamura T, Iwahori Y, Fukui S, Kanoh M, Yamada K. Consideration of life rhythm for hearing-dog robots searching for user. In: Lee R (Ed.), Computational science/Intelligence and applied informatics (Vol. 726). Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018, 102–5.
15.
Yoshida Y, Sekiya D, Nakamura T, Kanoh M, Yamada K. Hearing-dog robot to wake people up using its bumping action. In Lee R (Ed.), Computational science/Intelligence and applied informatics (Vol. 726). Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018: 41–50.
16.
Bert F, Gualano MR, Camussi E, Pieve G, Voglino G, Siliquini R. Animal assisted intervention: a systematic review of benefits and risks. Eur J Integr Med, 2016; 8(5): 695–706.
17.
Sadler M. I Came Alive the Day I Got Teddy. 2018. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://www.hearingdogs.org.uk....
18.
White N, Mills D, Hall S. Attachment style is related to quality of life for assistance dog owners. Int J Envir Res Pub Health, 2017; 14(6): 658–66.
19.
Sachs-Ericsson N, Hansen NK, Fitzgerald S. Benefits of assistance dogs: a review. Rehab Psychol, 2002; 47(3): 251–77.
20.
Shafer DN. A Tail of Hearing Service: Service Dogs Can Fill Gaps For People With Hearing Loss. 2005. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://leader.pubs.asha.org/d....
21.
Calnan M. Quantitative survey methods in health research. In: Saks M, Allsop J (Eds.), Researching Health: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). London: SAGE; 2013.
22.
Greasley AE, Fulford RJ, Pickard M, Hamilton N. Help musicians UK hearing survey: musicians’ hearing and hearing protection. Psych Mus, 2018; 27(1): 1–18.
23.
Raj-Koziak D, Gos E, Rajchel J, et al. Tinnitus and hearing survey: a Polish study of validity and reliability in a clinical population. Audiol Neurotol, 2018; 22(4–5): 197–204.
24.
Ventry MI, Weinstein EB. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear, 1982; 3(3): 128–34.
25.
Aiello CP, Lima II, Ferrari DV. Validity and reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Brazil J Otorhinolaryn, 2011; 77(4): 432–38.
26.
Newman WC, Weinstein EB, Jacobson PG, Hug AG. The hearing handicap inventory for adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear, 1990; 11(6): 430–3.
27.
Newman WC, Weinstein EB, Jacobson PG, Hug AG. Test–retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear, 1991; 12(5): 355–7.
28.
Saccone PA, Steiger JR. Hearing handicap among adult residents of an urban homeless shelter. J Health Care Poor Underserved, 2007; 18(1): 161–72.
29.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 1992; 30(6): 473–83.
30.
Tyrer P, Nur U, Crawford M, et al. The social functioning questionnaire: a rapid and robust measure of perceived functioning. Int J Soc Psych, 2005; 51(3): 265–75.
31.
Blount C, Evans C, Birch S, Warren F, Norton K. The properties of self‐report research measures: beyond psychometrics. Psych Psychotherap Theory, Res, Prac, 2002; 75(2): 151–64.
32.
Kidd AH, Kidd RM, George CC. Veterinarians and successful pet adoptions. Psychol Reports, 1992; 71: 551–7.
33.
Demorest ME, Walden BE. Psychometric principles in the selection, interpretation, and evaluation of communication selfassessment inventories. J Speech Hear Dis, 1984; 49(3), 226.
34.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016 Census Quickstats. 2016. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://quickstats.censusdata.....
35.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2016. 2016. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmed....
36.
Deaf Australia Inc. Annual Report 2017–2018. 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://deafaustralia.org.au/w....
37.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. SF-36 interim norms for Australian data. 1996. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://www.aihw.gov.au/report....
38.
Besser J, Stropahl M, Urry E, Launer S. Comorbidities of hearing loss and the implications of multimorbidity for audiological care. Hear Res, 2018; 369, 3–14.
39.
Dhanda N, Taheri S. A narrative review of obesity and hearing loss. Int J Obesity, 2017; 41(7), 1066–73.
40.
Alhanbali JS, Dawes JP, Lloyd JS, Munro JK. Self-reported listening-related effort and fatigue in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear, 2016; 38(1): e39–48.
41.
Nachtegaal J, Festen JM, Kramer SE. Hearing ability in working life and its relationship with sick leave and self-reported work productivity. Ear Hear, 2012; 33(1): 94–103.
42.
Herring MP. Exercise for the management of anxiety and stressrelated disorders. In: Stubbs B, Rosenbaum S (Eds.), Exercisebased interventions for mental illness: physical activity as part of clinical treatment. UK: Academic Press; 2018: 19–52.
43.
Schuch FB, Dunn AL, Kanitz AC, Delevatti RS, Fleck MP. Moderators of response in exercise treatment for depression: a systematic review. J Affect Dis, 2016; 195: 40–9.
44.
Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev, 2017; 4: 1–76.
45.
Penedo FJ, Dahn JR. Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Curr Opin Psych, 2005; 18(2): 189–93.
46.
Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Can Med Assoc J, 2006; 174(6): 801–9.
47.
Gilbert KL, Quinn SC, Goodman RM, Butler J, Wallace J. A meta-analysis of social capital and health: a case for needed research. J Health Psych, 2013; 18(11): 1385–99.
48.
Holt-Lunstad J, Smith T, Layton J. Social relationship and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med, 2010; 7(7): 1–20.
49.
Jordan S, Diederichs CD, Dollmann SD, Neuhauser HN. Health literacy, general health and social support. Results from the survey ‘German Health Update’. Eur J Pub Health, 2017; 27(Suppl. 3).
50.
Uchino BN. Understanding the links between social support and physical health: a life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Pers Psychol Sci, 2009; 4(3): 236–55.
51.
Hyams A, Margolius V, Scogin F, Hay-McCutcheon M. Hearing loss is uniquely associated with social functioning among older adults. Gerontol, 2015; 55: 447.
52.
Packer L. The Impact of Hearing Loss on Relationships. 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://www.healthyhearing.com....
53.
Martellucci S, Belvisi V, Ralli M, et al. Assistance dogs for persons with hearing impairment: a review. Int Tinnitus J, 2019; 23(1): 26–30.
54.
Palmer AD, Newsom JT, Rook KS. How does difficulty communicating affect the social relationships of older adults? An exploration using data from a national survey. J Comm Dis, 2016; 62: 131–46.
55.
Brustrom J, Greek A, Liu T, Hougham G. Which social activities best predict cognitive functioning in older adults? Gerontol, 2016; 56(Suppl. 3): 370.
56.
Cornwell B, Laumann EO, Schumm LP. The social connectedness of older adults: a national profile. Amer Sociol Rev, 2008; 73(2): 185–203.
57.
American Academy of Family Physicians. Mental health: keeping your emotional health. 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://familydoctor.org/menta....
58.
Gopinath B, Hickson L, Schneider J, et al. Hearing-impaired adults are at increased risk of experiencing emotional distress and social engagement restrictions five years later. Age Ageing, 2012; 41(5), 618–23.
59.
Queiros A, Faria D, Almeida F. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eur J Ed Stud, 2017; 3(9): 369–86.
60.
Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care, 2003; 15(3): 261–6.
61.
Liu M, Wronski L. Examining completion rates in web surveys via over 25,000 real-world surveys. Soc Sci Comp Rev, 2018; 36(1): 116–24.
62.
Saleh A, Bista K. Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: perceptions of graduate students. J Multidisc Eval, 2017; 13(29): 63–74.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
