Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34546945›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Implementation of a Hearing Loss Screening Intervention in Primary Care.

Melissa DeJonckheere, Michael M McKee, Timothy C Guetterman, Lauren S Schleicher, Elie Mulhem, Kate Panzer, Kathleen Bradley, Melissa A Plegue, Mary E Rapai, Lee A Green and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reframing Our Health Care System for Patients With Hearing Loss.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Melissa DeJonckheereDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan mdejonck@med.umich.edu.
Michael M McKeeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Timothy C GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lauren S SchleicherDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Elie MulhemDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Kate PanzerUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Kathleen BradleyDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Melissa A PlegueDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mary E RapaiDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lee A GreenDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Philip ZazoveDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHearing loss (HL) is underdiagnosed and often unaddressed. A recent study of screening for HL using an electronic prompt showed efficacy in increasing appropriate referrals for subsequent testing. We build on the results of this study using a qualitative lens to explore implementation processes through the perspectives of family medicine clinicians.

methodsWe collected clinic observations and semistructured interviews of family medicine clinicians and residents who interacted with the HL prompt. All data were analyzed using thematic, framework, and mixed methods integration strategies.

resultsWe interviewed 27 clinicians and conducted 10 observations. Thematic analysis resulted in 6 themes: (1) the prompt was overwhelmingly viewed as easy, simple to use, accurate; (2) clinicians considered prompt as an effective way to increase awareness and conversations with patients about HL; (3) clinician and staff buy-in played a vital role in implementation; (4) clinicians prioritized prompt during annual visits; (5) medical assistant involvement in prompt workflow varied by health system, clinic, and clinician; (6) prompt resulted in more conversations about HL, but uncertain impact on patient outcomes. Themes are presented alongside constructs of normalization process theory and intervention outcomes.

conclusionIntegration of a HL screening prompt into clinical practice varied by clinician buy-in and beliefs about the impact on patient outcomes, involvement of medical assistants, and prioritization during clinical visits. Further research is needed to understand how to leverage clinician and staff buy-in and whether implementation of a new clinical prompt has sustained impact on HL screening and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Hearing LossFamily PracticeHumansMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultationdeaf and hard of hearingdeaf healthhearing losshearing loss screeningprimary care

Identifiers

PMID34546945
PMCPMC8437567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.