Cited by 107Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsClinical practice guidelines implementationHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Management of tinnitus in English NHS audiology departments: An evaluation of current practice.

Open access
Hoare, Derek J., Gander, Phillip E., Collins, Luke, Smith, Sandra, Hall, Deborah A.·2012·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE: In 2009, the UK Department of Health formalized recommended National Health Service practices for the management of tinnitus from primary care onwards. It is timely therefore to evaluate the perceived practicality, utility and impact of those guidelines in the context of current practice. METHODS: We surveyed current practice by posting a 36-item questionnaire to all audiology and hearing therapy staff that we were able to identify as being involved in tinnitus patient care in England. RESULTS: In total, 138 out of 351 clinicians responded (39% response rate). The findings indicate a consensus opinion that management should be tailored to individual symptom profiles but that there is little standardization of assessment procedures or tools in use. CONCLUSIONS: While the lack of standardized practice might provide flexibility to meet local demand, it has drawbacks. It makes it difficult to ascertain key standards of best practice, it complicates the process of clinical audit, it implies unequal patient access to care, and it limits the implementation of translational research outcomes. We recommend that core elements of practice should be standardized, including use of a validated tinnitus questionnaires and an agreed pathway for decision making to better understand the rationale for management strategies offered.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01566.x

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the UK, 52% of audiology departments do not employ any staff trained in CBT.

    “Presently, many audiology departments in the UK (52%) do not employ any staff trained in CBT”

    From Psychological Therapy for People with Tinnitus: A Scoping Review of Treatment Components. (2017) · cites this paper as Hoare et al. 2012

    In Results > Clinical skill in tinnitus care (page unavailable), the paper reports that 31% of respondents had taken a CBT training course and that 17% reported no staff trained in any form of counselling. Neither figure establishes that 52% of departments employ no CBT-trained staff. The survey covered NHS audiology departments in England, not the UK as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 74% of audiologists would like to undertake further training in psychological therapies.

    “though a majority of audiologists (74%) would like to undertake further training in such psychological therapies (Hoare et al. 2012, 2015).”

    From Psychological Therapy for People with Tinnitus: A Scoping Review of Treatment Components. (2017) · cites this paper as Hoare et al. 2012

    The Results section (‘Clinical skill in tinnitus care’) reports that 74% of respondents favoured audiologists undertaking additional training in psychological approaches to tinnitus management. The respondents were not all audiologists, and favouring that training is not the same as saying they personally wanted to undertake it. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Sakashita T Hashimoto C Yamane H Kato S Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) for tinnitus patients Medical Journal of Minami Osaka Hospital 2008 55 1 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoare, D. J., Gander, P. E., Collins, L., Smith, S., & Hall, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Hoare, Derek J.
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-19
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
326-334
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W1585551982
Cited by
107
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Bristol
  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
tinnitus management, audiology practice, clinical practice standardization, Tinnitus Questionnaire, clinical audit, patient access to care, clinical decision pathway
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Audiology, Clinical Competence, England, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, State Medicine, Tinnitus, Focus Groups, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Statistics, Nonparametric, Disease Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review