Assessing Meaningful Improvement: Focus on the Tinnitus Functional Index.

Many studies have attempted to determine methodology for interpreting change on outcome instruments that result from an intervention. The objective of these studies has been to devise methods to identify the minimal level of change that would be consistent with actual benefit perceived by the patient, and not just statistically significant change. With respect to intervention for bothersome tinnitus, the authors of the original study to develop and validate the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) suggested that a minimum 13-point reduction in the TFI score was likely to reflect a change perceived as meaningful to an individual. The 13-point estimation of meaningful change for an individual is appropriate for use with any adult seeking care for tinnitus. However, it cannot be relied upon in isolation to determine if an individual believes that there has been a noticeable, or meaningful improvement in their quality of life. It is important to use subjective impressions elicited from the patient to assist in interpreting the meaning of TFI data for an individual. For clinicians engaging in care for tinnitus, we recommend using the TFI and pairing it with the patient's belief/impression as to whether they are doing better than they were before care for tinnitus was provided. Ideally, the outcome assessment would be conducted by someone other than the clinician who provided the intervention.

Audiologic characteristics in a sample of recently-separated military Veterans: The Noise Outcomes in Servicemembers Epidemiology Study (NOISE Study).

Military Service Members are often exposed to high levels of occupational noise, solvents, and other exposures that can be damaging to the auditory system. Little is known about hearing loss and how it progresses in Veterans following military service. This epidemiology study is designed to evaluate and monitor a cohort of Veterans for 20 years or more to determine how hearing loss changes over time and how those changes are related to noise exposure and other ototoxic exposures encountered during military service. Data reported here are from baseline assessments of the first 100 study participants (84 males; 16 females; mean age 33.5 years; SD 8.8; range 21-58). Each participant was asked to complete a comprehensive audiologic examination and self-report questionnaires regarding sociodemographic characteristics, noise and solvent exposures, health conditions common among post-deployment Veterans, and the social and emotional consequences of hearing loss. For this relatively young cohort, 29% exhibited hearing loss, defined as average hearing threshold >20 dB HL in the conventional audiometric range. Forty-two percent exhibited hearing loss in the extended-high-frequency audiometric range using the same criterion (average hearing threshold >20 dB HL). Certain factors were found to be associated with poorer hearing in both conventional and extended-high-frequency ranges, including age, type of military branch, years of military service, number of military deployments, noise exposure, tinnitus, and a positive screen for post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the majority of participants had hearing within normal limits, 27% reported a self-perceived mild/moderate hearing handicap and 14% reported a significant handicap. Further research is needed to identify a cause for this discrepancy in audiologic results versus self-report. The information obtained from this longitudinal study could be used in future resource planning with the goal of preventing, as much as possible, the development of hearing loss during military service, and the exacerbation of prevalent hearing loss after military service and over Veterans' lifetimes.