Because of the wealth of information available on the internet and increasing numbers of individuals relying on websites as a primary source of information for health-related questions, it is important that the readability of their content is within the comprehension level of most readers.The study evaluated the quality and readability of English-language Internet information for tinnitus.Analysis of Internet websites on tinnitus.A total of 134 websites with tinnitus information.Three key words (i.e., tinnitus, ringing in the ear, and buzzing in the ear) were entered in five country-specific versions of the most commonly used internet search engine in August 2016. For each of the 15 searches, the first 20 relevant websites were examined. After removing duplicates, a total of 134 websites were assessed. Their origin (commercial, nonprofit organization, government, personal, or university), quality (Health On the Net [HON] certification and DISCERN scores), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level Formula, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) were assessed.Most websites were of commercial (49.3%) or nonprofit organization (38.8%) origin. Their quality and readability was highly variable. Only 13.5% of websites had HON certification. χ2 analysis showed that there was significant association between website origin and HON certification [χ2(4) = 132.9, p < 0.0001]. The mean DISCERN scores were 2.39. No association between DISCERN scores and website origin was found. Readability measures showed that on average, only people with at least 10–12 yr of education could read and understand the internet information for tinnitus in websites. Almost all the websites exceeded the most stringent reading level recommended for health information.The results highlight great variability in the quality and readability of health information, specifically for tinnitus in the internet. These findings underscores the need for stakeholders (e.g., web-developers, clinicians) to be aware of this and to develop more user-friendly health information on websites to make it more accessible for people with low literacy.

Current aphasia treatment websites were found to exhibit low levels of quality and readability, creating potential accessibility problems for people with aphasia and significant others. Websites including treatment information for aphasia must be improved in order to increase greater information accessibility.

Purpose Researchers have identified features of successful aphasia conversation groups and clinician behaviors leading to engagement and group cohesion. There has been less focus in the literature on facilitator behaviors that hinder participation or result in disengagement. This study aims to explore the behaviors of graduate student facilitators that contribute to and detract from engagement in aphasia conversation groups. Method Data were drawn from 4 conversation group sessions from 2 different university settings. Groups included 1 graduate student facilitator and 3 or more persons with aphasia. Sociolinguistic discourse analysis was applied to transcripts of group sessions. Results Three broad patterns detailing facilitator behaviors were identified. Several facilitator actions contributing to engagement were noted, including strategic use of topic elicitors, multimodal communication supports, and techniques to avoid interactional asymmetry. Behaviors associated with participant disengagement were also noted across sessions, including restricted discourse behaviors and difficulty managing the competing needs of participants. Engagement and disengagement were the product of several coordinating actions of the facilitator and group members that together influenced participation in conversation. Conclusion Results suggest that novice facilitators exhibit behaviors that contribute to and detract from participant engagement in aphasia conversation groups. Findings, discussed within the context of the literature on well-managed groups, highlight the skill required in managing the needs of participants with aphasia and knowing how and when to employ clinician-led strategies.

No abstract

Communication during clinical consultations is an important factor that facilitates decision-making by patients and family members. For clinicians, these interactions are opportunities to build rapport and to facilitate appropriate decision-making.This article presents the literature review of studies focusing on communication between audiologist, patients, and their family members during initial audiology consultations and rehabilitation planning sessions.A literature review was conducted.The review included eight empirical studies.A systematic search of the CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, and PsychInfo databases was used to identify relevant articles for review. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rating of Qualitative Research (RQR) scale.The average consultation length was 57.4 min (ranged 27.3–111 min), in which the mean length of case history discussion was 8.8 min (ranged 1.7–22.6 min) and the mean length of diagnosis and management planning was 29 min (ranged 2.2–78.5 min). Utterances spoken by audiologists were greater (about 51%) than patients (37%), whereas family members spoke the fewest utterances (12%) during interactions. Patients raised concerns (typically psychological in nature with negative emotional stance) about hearing aids in half of the appointments where hearing aids were recommended as the rehabilitation option. However, audiologists missed opportunities to build relationships as these concerns of patients were not typically addressed. Also, audiologists’ language was associated with hearing aid uptake (i.e., patients were less likely to uptake hearing aids when audiologists used complex language).The review highlights that audiologists dominate the conversation during audiology consultations and rehabilitation planning sessions. Audiologists did not take advantage of the opportunity to develop patient-centered communication and shared decision-making. Implications of these findings to both clinical practice and to audiology education and training are discussed.