ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3804-1452
Current Organisations
Heriot-Watt University
,
Heriot-Watt University Malaysia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 31-12-2019
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000826
Abstract: There is a great deal of variation in the extent to which people with tinnitus find it distressing, which cannot be explained solely by differences in perceived loudness. The Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress proposes that tinnitus becomes and is maintained as a distressing problem due to a process of interaction between negative thoughts, negative emotions, attention and monitoring, safety behavior, and beliefs. This study used path analysis to assess how well different configurations of this model fit using questionnaire data obtained from people with tinnitus. This was a cross-sectional study. Three hundred forty-two members of the public with tinnitus volunteered to complete a survey comprising a series of questionnaires and subscales of questionnaires measuring each of the constructs contained within the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress. The optimum factor structure of each measure for the study population was established, and the resulting factors were used to construct a series of path models based on the theoretical model. Path analysis was conducted for each of these, and the goodness of fit of the models was assessed using established fit criteria. Five of the six path models tested reached the threshold for adequate fit, and further modifications improved the fit of the three most parsimonious of these. The two best-fitting models had comparable fit indices which approached the criteria for good fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.061, Comparative Fit Index = 0.984, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.970 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Comparative Fit Index = 0.993, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.982). They differed principally in the placement of tinnitus magnitude and the inclusion/noninclusion of control beliefs. There are theoretical arguments to support both a beliefs-driven and a loudness-driven model, and it may be that different configurations of the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress are more appropriate to different groups of people with tinnitus. Further investigation of this is needed. This notwithstanding, the present study provides empirical support for a model of tinnitus distress which provides a clinical framework for the development of more effective psychological therapy.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 19-08-2021
DOI: 10.2196/28878
Abstract: Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and ersity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. This study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. The study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. Overall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.
Publisher: American Speech Language Hearing Association
Date: 10-2016
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to describe data collection considerations, methods, and response rates for a survey available both online and on paper. Methodological issues in the design of online data collection, and advantages and disadvantages of different data collection methods are discussed. A survey was compiled that included 9 full or partial clinical questionnaires designed to measure different components relevant to tinnitus distress. It was completed once by 342 members of the public with tinnitus. Respondents could choose whether to complete the survey online or on paper . Ninety-five percent of participants chose to complete the survey online. The advantages of an online self-administered questionnaire include low numbers of unanswered questions, convenience (particularly in a longer survey such as this), a fast return rate, and reduced expense. Age emerged as an important variable, with those opting to complete the paper-based version of the survey being older. Online data collection has several advantages to both participants and researchers. However, cross-sectional studies such as that presented here should also offer paper questionnaires to avoid excluding certain subgroups of the population. Ethics and reporting guidelines for Internet-delivered questionnaire studies are available. These can usefully inform study design and guide high-quality reporting.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-09-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-022-06702-1
Abstract: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation , group conversations in noisy social situations , and impact on social situations . Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 21-11-2018
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565
Abstract: To raise awareness and propose a good practice guide for translating and adapting any hearing-related questionnaire to be used for comparisons across populations ided by language or culture, and to encourage investigators to publish detailed steps. From a synthesis of existing guidelines, we propose important considerations for getting started, followed by six early steps: (1) Preparation, (2, 3) Translation steps, (4) Committee Review, (5) Field testing and (6) Reviewing and finalising the translation. Not applicable. Across these six steps, 22 different items are specified for creating a questionnaire that promotes equivalence to the original by accounting for any cultural differences. Published ex les illustrate how these steps have been implemented and reported, with shared experiences from the authors, members of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus research NETwork. A checklist of the preferred reporting items is included to help researchers and clinicians make informed choices about conducting or omitting any items. We also recommend using the checklist to document these decisions in any resulting report or publication. Following this step-by-step guide would promote quality assurance in multinational trials and outcome evaluations but, to confirm functional equivalence, large-scale evaluation of psychometric properties should follow.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2017
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 20-03-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-021-05160-5
Abstract: This systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials. Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis. Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains. This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains. The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-05-2019
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000365
Abstract: Researchers and clinicians consider thinking to be important in the development and maintenance of tinnitus distress, and altering thoughts or thinking style is an object of many forms of psychological therapy for tinnitus. Those working with people with tinnitus require a reliable, psychometrically robust means of measuring both positive and negative thinking related to it. The Tinnitus Cognitions Questionnaire (TCQ) was designed as such a measure and its authors showed it to be reliable, with good psychometric properties. However, no research teams have yet carried out independent validation. This study aimed to use the TCQ to investigate thinking amongst members of the general population with both bothersome and nonbothersome tinnitus and also to verify its factor structure. Three hundred forty-two members of the public with tinnitus completed the TCQ online or on paper. They also rated their tinnitus on a scale as “not a problem,” “a small problem,” “a moderate problem,” “a big problem,” or a “very big problem.” The authors tested the original factor structure of the TCQ using confirmatory factor analysis and then calculated the mean scores for each item, comparing mean total scores across “problem categories” for the full questionnaire and for the positive and negative subscales. The original two-factor structure of the TCQ was a good fit to the data when the correlation between positive and negative factors was fixed at zero (root mean square error of approximation = 0.064, 90% confidence interval = 0.058 to 0.070). Items pertaining to wishing the tinnitus would go away and despairing that it would ever get better had the highest mean scores. The mean total score for the “no problem” group (M = 31.17, SD = 16.03) was not significantly different from the mean total score for the “small problem” group (M = 34.00, SD = 12.44, p = 0.99). Differences between mean scores for all other groups were statistically significant. For the negative subscale, differences were statistically significant between all problem categories. For the positive subscale, the differences between mean scores were only statistically significant for the “no problem” group (M = 28.40, SD = 17.11) compared with the “moderate problem” group (M = 18.55, SD = 8.64, p = 0.02) and for the “moderate problem” group compared with the “very big problem” group (M = 26.79, SD = 11.66, p = 0.002). Positive and negative factors were uncorrelated ( ρ = −0.03.) The TCQ is a valid measure of positive and negative thinking in tinnitus, and the authors recommend its use in research and therapeutic settings. Negative thinking appears to be associated with more problematic tinnitus, but positive thinking is not associated with unproblematic tinnitus, suggesting that reducing negative thinking may be more important than teaching positive thinking in therapy.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2013
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 17-04-2013
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-03-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-020-4094-9
Abstract: Single-sided deafness (SSD) describes the presence of a unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. SSD disrupts spatial hearing and understanding speech in background noise. It has functional, psychological and social consequences. Potential options for rehabilitation include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms of these interventions are documented inconsistently in the literature, using a variety of outcomes ranging from tests of speech perception to quality of life questionnaires. It is therefore difficult to compare interventions when rehabilitating SSD. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study is an international initiative that aims to develop a minimum set of core outcomes for use in future trials of SSD interventions. The CROSSSD study adopts an international two-round online modified Delphi survey followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a patient-centred core outcome domain set for SSD based on what is considered critical and important for assessing whether an intervention for SSD has worked. The resulting core outcome domain set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials and could have further applications in guiding the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Standardisation will facilitate comparison of research findings.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.HEARES.2019.02.017
Abstract: The heterogeneity of tinnitus is substantial. Its numerous pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical manifestations have h ered fundamental and treatment research significantly. A decade ago, the Tinnitus Research Initiative introduced the Tinnitus S le Case History Questionnaire, a case history instrument for standardised collection of information about the characteristics of the tinnitus patient. Since then, a number of studies have been published which characterise in iduals and groups using data collected with this questionnaire. However, its use has been restricted to a clinical setting and to the evaluation of people with tinnitus only. In addition, it is limited in the ability to capture relevant comorbidities and evaluate their temporal relationship with tinnitus. Here we present a new case history instrument which is comprehensive in scope and can be answered by people with and without tinnitus alike. This 'European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire' (ESIT-SQ) was developed with specific attention to questions about potential risk factors for tinnitus (including demographics, lifestyle, general medical and otological histories), and tinnitus characteristics (including perceptual characteristics, modulating factors, and associations with co-existing conditions). It was first developed in English, then translated into Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish, thus having broad applicability and supporting international collaboration. With respect to better understanding tinnitus profiles, we anticipate the ESIT-SQ to be a starting point for comprehensive multi-variate analyses of tinnitus. Data collected with the ESIT-SQ can allow establishment of patterns that distinguish tinnitus from non-tinnitus, and definition of common sets of tinnitus characteristics which might be indicated by the presence of otological or comorbid systemic diseases for which tinnitus is a known symptom.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 04-2018
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 17-03-2021
Abstract: linical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting i outcomes /i . Inconsistent selection and ersity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. his study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. he study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. verall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. haring our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs. >
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-03-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-020-04240-2
Abstract: Following the publication of our article [1], the authors have notified us of a typo in the third bullet point of the Consensus Criteria section.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 19-03-2019
Publisher: Elsevier
Date: 2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2016
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 12-01-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2016
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Deborah Hall.