Combining unequal variance signal detection theory with the health belief model to optimize shared decision making in tinnitus patients: Part 1—model development.
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The results from different Cochrane studies justify considerable professional equipoise concerning different treatment options for tinnitus. In case of professional equipoise, Shared Decision Making (SDM) is an indispensable tool for guiding patients to the intervention that best fits their needs. To improve SDM we developed a method to assess the accuracy and utility of decisions made by tinnitus patients when freely choosing between different treatment options during their patient journey. The different treatment options were audiological care and psychosocial counseling. Methods: We developed a statistical model by combining Signal Detection Theory (SDT) with the Health Belief Model (HBM). HBM states that perceived severity of an illness is strongly related to sick-role behavior. As proxies for perceived severity, we selected hearing loss and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score at baseline. Next, we used these proxies as predictors in linear regression models based on SDT to determine the likelihood ratio of true positive decisions (choosing a treatment option and experiencing an improvement of more than 7 points in THI-score) and false positive decisions (choosing a treatment option and experiencing an improvement of less than 7 points in THI-score) for audiological care and psychosocial counseling, respectively. Data was gathered in a prospective cohort of 145 adults referred for tinnitus care to an outpatient audiology clinic in the Netherlands. The participants were asked to decide freely on uptake of audiological care (provision of hearing aids with or without a sound generator) and uptake of psychosocial counseling. Logistic regression with Bayesian inference was used to determine the cumulative distribution functions and the probability density functions of true positive decisions and false positive decisions as function of hearing loss and baseline THI-score for both treatment options, respectively. With the cumulative distribution functions, we determined the accuracy of the decisions. With the probability density functions we calculated the likelihood ratios of true positive decisions versus false positive decisions as function of hearing loss and baseline THI-score. These likelihood ratio functions allow assessment of the utility of the decisions by relating a decision criterion to perceived benefits and costs. Results: Baseline THI-score drives decisions about psychosocial counseling and hearing loss drives decisions about audiological care. Decisions about psychosocial counseling are more accurate than decisions about audiological care. Both decisions have a low accuracy (0.255 for audiological care and - 0.429 for psychosocial counseling), however. For decisions about audiological care the unbiased decision criterion is 37 dB(HL), meaning that a lenient decision criterion (likelihood ratio < 1) is adopted by patients with a hearing loss below 37 dB and a strict criterion (likelihood ratio > 1) by patients with a hearing loss exceeding 37 dB. For psychosocial counseling uptake the decision criterion is always strict, regardless of baseline THI-score. The distributions of the populations, that do and do not experience a clinically important change in THI-score, have unequal variances for psychosocial counseling, while they have almost equal variances for audiological care. Discussion: Combining SDT and HBM can help assess accuracy and utility of patient decisions and thus may provide valuable information that can help to improve SDM by combining patient related outcome measures, decision drivers, and perceived benefits and costs of a treatment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Pre-treatment tinnitus impact on quality of life, measured with the THI questionnaire, drives the preference for psychosocial counseling.
“The pre-treatment impact of tinnitus on quality of life, measured with the THI questionnaire, drives the preference for psychosocial counseling (Hoetink et al., 2024).”
From Combining the unequal variance signal detection model with the health belief model to optimize shared decision making in tinnitus patients: part 2—patient profiling (2025) · cites this paper as Hoetink et al., 2024
The Methods (Primary outcome measure; page unavailable) say baseline THI measures tinnitus’s impact on everyday functioning. The Results (page unavailable) find higher baseline THI scores among participants who chose psychosocial counseling, but say this only “suggests” greater perceived impact leads to more uptake. Saying the impact “drives” preference states that relationship more definitively than the Results support. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHearing loss is the primary driver for choosing audiological care.
“The findings reveal that hearing loss is the primary driver for choosing audiological care.”
From Combining the unequal variance signal detection model with the health belief model to optimize shared decision making in tinnitus patients: part 2—patient profiling (2025) · cites this paper as Hoetink et al., 2024
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
The Health Belief Model: a decade later.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818401100101 · Cited by 8,437 · see citing works
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405 · see citing works
When to use the <scp>B</scp> onferroni correction
Armstrong, R. A. (2014) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.12131 · Cited by 3,031 · see citing works
Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values.
Donders, A. R. T., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., Stijnen, T., & Moons, K. G. M. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.014 · Cited by 2,582 · see citing works
Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory.
Newman, C., Jacobson, G., & Spitzer, J. (1996) · Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/archotol.1996.01890140029007 · Cited by 2,140 · see citing works
Baguley, D., McFerran, D., & Hall, D. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60142-7 · Cited by 1,245 · see citing works
Implementing shared decision making in the NHS
Elwyn, G. J., Laitner, S., Coulter, A., Walker, E., Watson, P., & Thomson, R. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c5146 · Cited by 1,101 · see citing works
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare
Stiggelbout, A. M., Weijden, T. V. D., Wit, M. P. T. D., Frosch, D., Legare, F., Montori, V. M., Trevena, L., & Elwyn, G. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e256 · Cited by 1,014 · see citing works
Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. T. (2000) · Gothic.net · doi:10.1111/1529-1006.001 · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Tinnitus: causes and clinical management
Langguth, B., Kreuzer, P. M., Kleinjung, T., & Ridder, D. D. (2013) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(13)70160-1 · Cited by 807 · see citing works
(2000) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 737 · see citing works
Global Prevalence and Incidence of Tinnitus
Jarach, C. M., Lugo, A., Scala, M., van den Brandt, P. A., Cederroth, C. R., Odone, A., Garavello, W., Schlee, W., Langguth, B., & Gallus, S. (2022) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2189 · Cited by 567 · see citing works
Vestergaard Knudsen, L., Öberg, M., Nielsen, C., Naylor, G., & Kramer, S. E. (2010) · Trends in Amplification · doi:10.1177/1084713810385712 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
A multidisciplinary European guideline for tinnitus: diagnostics, assessment, and treatment
Cima, R. F. F., Mazurek, B., Haider, H., Kikidis, D., Lapira, A., Noreña, A., & Hoare, D. J. (2019) · HNO · doi:10.1007/s00106-019-0633-7 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
Ridder, D. D., Vanneste, S., Weisz, N., Londero, A., Schlee, W., Elgoyhen, A. B., & Langguth, B. (2013) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.03.021 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and "nonparametric" indexes.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.401 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Cima, R. F. F., Maes, I. H. L., Joore, M. A., Scheyen, D., Refaie, A. E., Baguley, D., Anteunis, L. J. C., van Breukelen, G., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60469-3 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Signal detection theory and generalized linear models.
DeCarlo, L. T. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.2.186 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
An integrative tinnitus model based on sensory precision.
Sedley, W., Friston, K. J., Gander, P. E., Kumar, S., & Griffiths, T. D. (2016) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2016.10.004 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
Tinnitus Handicap Inventory for Evaluating Treatment Effects: Which Changes Are Clinically Relevant?
Zeman, F., Koller, M., Figueiredo, R., Aazevedo, A., Rates, M., Coelho, C., Kleinjung, T., de Ridder, D., Langguth, B., & Landgrebe, M. (2011) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1177/0194599811403882 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Cognitive behavioural therapy for tinnitus
Fuller, T., Cima, R., Langguth, B., Mazurek, B., Vlaeyen, J. W., & Hoare, D. J. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012614.pub2 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Cognitive-behavioral treatments for tinnitus: a review of the literature
Cima, R. F. F., Andersson, G., Schmidt, C. J., & Henry, J. A. (2014) · Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · doi:10.3766/jaaa.25.1.4 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus.
Sereda, M., Xia, J., El Refaie, A., Hall, D. A., & Hoare, D. J. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013094.pub2 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Krauß, P., Tziridis, K., Metzner, C., Schilling, A., Hoppe, U., & Schulze, H. (2016) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00597 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
The Neural Bases of Tinnitus: Lessons from Deafness and Cochlear Implants
Knipper, M., van Dijk, P., Schulze, H., Mazurek, B., Krauß, P., Scheper, V., Warnecke, A., Schlee, W., Schwabe, K., Singer, W., et al. (2020) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1314-19.2020 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
DeCarlo, L. T. (2010) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2010.01.001 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Tinnitus and underlying brain mechanisms
Galazyuk, A. V., Wenstrup, J. J., & Hamid, M. A. (2012) · Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · doi:10.1097/moo.0b013e3283577b81 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Predictive coding and stochastic resonance as fundamental principles of auditory phantom perception.
Schilling, A., Sedley, W., Gerum, R., Metzner, C., Tziridis, K., Maier, A., Schulze, H., Zeng, F.-G., Friston, K. J., & Krauss, P. (2023) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awad255 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Living with tinnitus and the health care journey: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Marks, E., Smith, P., & McKenna, L. (2019) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12351 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Bankstahl, U. S., Elkin, E. P., Gebauer, A., & Görtelmeyer, R. (2012) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.3109/14992027.2011.653448 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Searchfield, G. D. (2020) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2020_183 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Differences in characteristics between people with tinnitus that seek help and that do not.
Rademaker, M. M., Stegeman, I., Brabers, A. E. M., de Jong, J. D., Stokroos, R. J., & Smit, A. L. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01632-5 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat Tinnitus Therapy Outcome Measures Are Important for Patients?– A Discrete Choice Experiment
Rademaker, M. M., Essers, B. A. B., Stokroos, R. J., Smit, A. L., & Stegeman, I. (2021) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.668880 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus
van Heteren, J. A. A., Arts, R. A. G. J., Killian, M. J. P., Assouly, K. K. S., van de Wauw, C., Stokroos, R. J., Smit, A. L., & George, E. L. J. (2020) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2020.1832266 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Detection and Discrimination of Compound Stimuli: Tools for Multidimensional Detection Theory
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410611147-14 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Krauss (2016) · doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00597/abstract
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lehóczky, Z. Z., Smit, A. L., Kaldenbach, S., Lieftink, A., Versnel, H., Stokroos, R. J., & Hoetink, A. E. (2025) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2025.1466354
Future Audiologists as Social Entrepreneurs: Creating Value Beyond Audiograms and Hearing Aids
Wambacq, I. J. A., & DePryck, K. (2026) · Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · doi:10.1044/2025_persp-25-00064
Xu, X., He, X., Shao, X., & Xie, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1751124
- Authors
- Hoetink, A. E., Kaldenbach, S., Lieftink, A., Versnel, H., & Stokroos, R. J.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Venue
- Frontiers in Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-12-04
- Volume
- 18
- Pages
- 1451741-1451741
- ISSN
- 1662-453X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11653419
- OpenAlex
- W4404996859
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- tinnitus, shared decision-making, signal detection theory, Health Belief Model, psychosocial counseling, hearing aids, sound generator, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, perceived severity, hearing loss, likelihood ratios, Bayesian inference, patient decision-making, treatment uptake
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
