Hearing for Communication and Resident Engagement (HearCARE), Pennsylvania, 2021-2023 (ICPSR 39345)
Version Date: Mar 30, 2026 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Catherine Palmer, University of Pittsburgh
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR39345.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
Amplification is an evidence-based front-line treatment for those with impaired communication secondary to Age Related Hearing Loss (ARHL). ARHL is the most prevalent cause of communication impairment among older adults and multiple existing evidence-based care models exist to address it. This study compared the two most common models of care (defined below) for ARHL provided to adults in assisted living/personal care communities.
- The Consult Model (i.e., usual care) was an acute care strategy, relying on a monthly Audiologist visit to the facility.
- The Engage Model was a chronic care approach to supportive hearing loss self-management of ARHL. Engage includes (a) hearing screening for all residents, (b) an individualized communication plan for those with an identified hearing loss (e.g., one-to-one, group, telephone, television plans, hearing aid trouble shooting, communication strategies, etc.), (c) provision of simple, non-custom amplifiers, (d) referral to audiology if needed, and (e) ongoing support provided by trained personnel (Communication Facilitator) under the supervision of the audiologist.
This study included three separate sample populations at 10 medical facilities. The staff at the medical facilities were selected to measure job satisfaction (DS1). Residents of the medical facilities were sampled to collect measures related to the impact of hearing on an individual's life and general demographics (DS2 and DS3). And the family of the residents were sampled to measure caregiver burden (DS4).
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reason for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes
- Users should note that the variable ENROLLFACILITY can be used to link all four datasets together. Additionally, the variable RESIDENT_ID can be used to link Outcomes Data (DS2) and Residents Data (DS3) together.
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The purpose of this study included several study aims:
- Aim 1: To compare the effectiveness of a Consult Model versus an Engage Model in improving satisfaction with participation in social activities for all residents.
- Aim 2: To compare the effectiveness of a Consult Model versus an Engage Model in increasing hearing specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in residents with measured hearing loss.
Secondary Aims explored the impact of interventions on staff satisfaction and family burden as well as other stakeholder prioritized outcomes.
Study Design View help for Study Design
This study included an open cohort stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with a phased, randomized roll out. Each model of care was applied at the facility level (cluster) but the primary outcomes were obtained at the resident level.
Ten facilities were included in the study where respondents were followed for 25 months. The first four months constituted the baseline period. They were randomly placed into the control or intervention groups. Residents could enroll in the study at any time point, and followed-up on at regular intervals. This implied that crossover to the intervention was not only at the facility level, but also at the resident level. Once the intervention was available at a facility, residents were exposed to the intervention continuously. The resident level outcomes of satisfaction with social participation and hearing-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were measured every 5 months for the duration of the study.
Sample View help for Sample
This study included three separate sample populations. They are described as follows:
- All residents in a facility were identified to participate. Residents who could not complete the surveys due to a language barrier or cognitive decline (assessed by facility staff) were not eligible to participate. Residents enrolled in the study during any time period were followed until the end of the study or until they were no longer a resident of the facility, whichever came first.
- Any family member of an enrolled resident was invited to participate.
- All staff were asked to complete surveys.
Family and Staff could participate in a round of data collection regardless of whether they participated in the previous round.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
Older adults living in assisted living facilities and staff of assisted living facilities in Western Pennsylvania.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
This study included variables regarding job satisfaction (DS1), health history regarding hearing (DS2), social activity satisfaction (DS2), general demographics (DS3), and caregiver burden (DS4).
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
For staff, the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ) was selected to measure staff job satisfaction. The questionnaire consisted of 3 items with 6-level responses ranging from 'Strongly Agree' (1) to 'Disagree Strongly' (6). The combined score was created by averaging the 3 items with the second item reverse coded. Lower scores indicated more satisfaction with one's job.
The resident scales included the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Short Form (HHI) and the Satisfaction with Participation in Discretionary Social Activities Questionnaire. The HHI consisted of 10 items related to the impact of hearing on an individual's life where each item's response is chosen from 'Yes,' 'Sometimes,' or 'No.' The items are scored 4, 2, and 0, respectively then summed for a total score where higher scores indicate hearing having a worse impact on quality of life. The Satisfaction with Participation in Discretionary Social Activities (PROMIS) Questionnaire consisted of 7 items with 5-level responses of 'Not at all', 'A little bit', 'Somewhat', 'Quite a bit', and 'Very much'. The score was calculated by summing the items then transformed to a t-score with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
The family scale selected was the Zarit Burden Interview to capture caregiver burden for family members. The questionnaire consisted of 4 items with 5-level responses ranging from 'Never' (0) to 'Nearly always' (4). The total score was calculated by summing the items with higher scores indicating more burden.
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2026-03-30
Version History View help for Version History
2026-03-30 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.