Christi M. Barbee

Purpose: This study investigated changes in students’ attitudes using 2 validated interprofessional survey instruments—the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning (CHIRP) instrument and the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS)—before and after didactic and clinical cohorts.Methods: Students from 7 colleges/schools participated in didactic and clinical cohorts during the 2017–2018 year. Didactic cohorts experienced 2 interactive sessions 6 months apart, while clinical cohorts experienced 4 outpatient clinical sessions once monthly. For the baseline and post-cohort assessments, 865 students were randomly assigned to complete either the 14-item CHIRP or the 27-item IPAS. The Pittman test using permutations of linear ranks was used to determine differences in the score distribution between the baseline and post-cohort assessments. Pooled results were compared for the CHIRP total score and the IPAS total and subdomain scores. For each score, 3 comparisons were made simultaneously: overall baseline versus post-didactic cohort, overall baseline versus post-clinical cohort, and post-didactic cohort versus post-clinical cohort. Alpha was adjusted to 0.0167 to account for simultaneous comparisons.Results: The baseline and post-cohort survey response rates were 62.4% and 65.9% for CHIRP and 58.7% and 58.1% for IPAS, respectively. The post-clinical cohort scores for the IPAS subdomain of teamwork, roles, and responsibilities were significantly higher than the baseline and post-didactic cohort scores. No differences were seen for the remaining IPAS subdomain scores or the CHIRP instrument total score.Conclusion: The IPAS instrument may discern changes in student attitudes in the subdomain of teamwork, roles, and responsibilities following short-term clinical experiences involving diverse interprofessional team members.

Standard audiometric evaluations are not sensitive enough to identify hidden hearing loss (HHL) and/or cochlear synaptopathy (CS). Patients with either of these conditions frequently present with difficulty understanding speech in noise or other complaints such as tinnitus. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify articles in peer-reviewed journals that assessed the sensitivity of audiologic measures for detecting HHL and/or CS, and which showed potential for use in a clinical test battery for these disorders. A reference librarian submitted specific boolean terminology to MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The authors used a consensus approach with specially designed score sheets for the selection of titles, abstracts, and then articles for inclusion in the systematic review and for quality assessment. Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review. Seven articles involved humans; seven involved animals, and one study used both humans and animals. Results showed that pure-tone audiometry to 20 kHz, otoacoustic emissions, electrocochleography, auditory brainstem response (ABR), electrophysiological tests, speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion, interviews, and self-report measures have been used to assess HHL and/or CS. For HHL, ultra-high-frequency audiometry may help identify persons with sensory hair cell loss that does not show up on standard audiograms. Promising nonbehavioral measures for CS included ABR wave I amplitude, the summating potential-to-action potential ratio, and speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion. Self-report questionnaires also may help identify auditory dysfunction in persons with normal hearing.

This issue of Seminars in Hearing has focused on the early intervention of adult sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Contributions to this monograph have taken a contemporary issues approach to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of mild SNHL. This article looks toward the future and discusses clinical and research implications for the early intervention of adult SNHL.