Author
Listed:
- Katijah Khoza-Shangase
(Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, School of Human and Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa)
- Nothando Masondo
(Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, School of Human and Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa)
Abstract
The study was an initial exploration of the current ototoxicity assessment and management practices by audiologists in South Africa. An exploratory survey research methodology through a cross-sectional research design was adopted where audiologists were recruited from professional associations’ databases in South Africa, using specific inclusion criteria. The study made use of an 18-item web-based survey guided by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) (2018) guidelines which were developed from reviewing international guidelines such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA,1994) and the American Academy of Audiology (AAA, 2009). The study surveyed 31 audiologists from across the country. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Findings implied significant gaps between knowledge and translation of this knowledge into practice. Over two thirds of the participants engage with ototoxicity monitoring and management, but the practices adopted by them do not align with international standards nor with the national HPCSA guidelines on assessment and management of patients on ototoxic medications. Most participants do not conduct baseline assessments, and the frequency of monitoring is irregular and reduced from the recommended; thus influencing ability for early detection and intervention of ototoxicity within this context. Non-standard assessment battery is used for assessment and monitoring, raising questions about the reliability and validity of the data used to make preventive treatment decisions. Lack of collaborative work between audiologists and the rest of the clinical team involved in the treatment of patients on ototoxic medications was found to be an important contributing factor to the less than optimal ototoxicity management practices. Of factors potentially influencing adherence to guidelines, the institution of employment, specifically employment in a tuberculosis hospital, seemed to have a positive influence, possibly due to the focused nature of the audiologists’ scope of practice there as well as availability of resources. The level of education appeared to have no influence. Current findings provide contextually relevant evidence on ototoxicity assessment and management within this context. They raise important implications for guidelines adherence and translating knowledge, policies and guidelines into practice, clinical assessment and management protocols followed, appropriate resource allocation per programme, as well as strategic planning for national ototoxicity assessment and management programmes in context. The findings also raise important implications for low- and middle-income countries, in terms of adopting international guidelines without considering context.
Suggested Citation
Katijah Khoza-Shangase & Nothando Masondo, 2020.
"What Are the Current Audiological Practices for Ototoxicity Assessment and Management in the South African Healthcare Context?,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, April.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2613-:d:344109
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Ben Sebothoma & Katijah Khoza-Shangase, 2021.
"Investigation of the Interaction between Hearing Function and Comorbidities in Adults Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-11, November.
- Lucia Jane Stevenson & Leigh Biagio-de Jager & Marien Alet Graham & De Wet Swanepoel, 2021.
"Community-Based Ototoxicity Monitoring for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in South Africa: An Evaluation Study,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2613-:d:344109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.