Purpose This clinical focus article provides an overview of clinical models currently being used for the provision of comprehensive aural rehabilitation (AR) for adults with cochlear implants (CIs) in the Unites States. Method Clinical AR models utilized by hearing health care providers from nine clinics across the United States were discussed with regard to interprofessional AR practice patterns in the adult CI population. The clinical models were presented in the context of existing knowledge and gaps in the literature. Future directions were proposed for optimizing the provision of AR for the adult CI patient population. Findings/Conclusions There is a general agreement that AR is an integral part of hearing health care for adults with CIs. While the provision of AR is feasible in different clinical practice settings, service delivery models are variable across hearing health care professionals and settings. AR may include interprofessional collaboration among surgeons, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists with varying roles based on the characteristics of a particular setting. Despite various existing barriers, the clinical practice patterns identified here provide a starting point toward a more standard approach to comprehensive AR for adults with CIs.

METHODS: Using grounded theory procedures, we interviewed 26 employed individuals with disabilities who were part of a larger investigation examining how employees with disabilities are treated in the workplace. In this article, we present findings in response to the question: "What can employers do to create more inclusive workplaces in which employees with disabilities are treated with dignity and respect?" RESULTS: Results revealed that it is not only employers who are responsible for creating inclusive workplaces; this responsibility must be shared by employees with disabilities and their co-workers, if an organizational culture of inclusion is to be developed and maintained. Furthermore, the actions of each member of the organization have a reciprocal impact on the other members in terms of making changes to the organizational culture. CONCLUSION: The participants suggested an abundance of strategies to develop a culture that values workers with disabilities, readily provides them with needed job accommodations, and ensures they are treated with dignity and respect. Implications of these findings for business leaders, vocational rehabilitation (VR) professionals, and workers with disabilities are examined. Future research directions are also explored.

No abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (a) provide introductory literature regarding cultural constructs, health disparities, and social determinants of health (SDoH); (b) summarize the literature regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Hearing Screening Follow-Up Survey (HSFS) data; (c) explore the CDC EHDI HSFS data regarding the contribution of maternal demographics to loss-to-follow-up/loss-to-documentation (LTF/D) between hearing screening and audiologic diagnosis for 2016, 2017, and 2018; and (d) examine these health disparities within the context of potential ethnoracial biases. Method: This is a comprehensive narrative literature review of cultural constructs, hearing health disparities, and SDoH as they relate to the CDC EHDI HSFS data. We explore the maternal demographic data reported on the CDC EHDI website and report disparities for maternal age, education, ethnicity, and race for 2016, 2017, and 2018. We focus on LTF/D for screening and diagnosis within the context of racial and cultural bias. Results: A literature review demonstrates the increase in quality of the CDC EHDI HSFS data over the past 2 decades. LTF/D rates for hearing screening and audiologic diagnostic testing have improved from higher than 60% to current rates of less than 30%. Comparisons of diagnostic completion rates reported on the CDC website for the EHDI HSFS 2016, 2017, and 2018 data show trends for maternal age, education, and race, but not for ethnicity. Trends were defined as changes more than 10% for variables averaged over a 3-year period (2016–2018). Conclusions: Although there have been significant improvements in LTF/D over the past 2 decades, there continue to be opportunities for further improvement. Beyond neonatal screening, delays continue to be reported in the diagnosis of young children with hearing loss. Notwithstanding the extraordinarily diverse families within the United States, the imperative is to minimize such delays so that all children with hearing loss can, at the very least, have auditory accessibility to spoken language by 3 months of age. Conscious awareness is essential before developing a potentially effective plan of action that might remediate the problem.

Workplace mistreatment is common for workers with and without disabilities. Overt forms of mistreatment in the workplace (e.g., abuse, bullying, harassment) have been well studied; however, less is known about more subtle forms of workplace mistreatment for employees with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine how workers with disabilities are treated on the job, the types of mistreatment present in the workplace, the consequences involved (if any), the courses of action taken (if any), and workers’ satisfaction with the outcomes of actions taken. We used a grounded theory approach to learn from 26 employees with disabilities about their experiences with workplace treatment. Primary themes that emerged from the data were (a) the emotional toll of being mistreated on the job; (b) attempting to “grin and bear it,” as one participant described it, to avoid mistreatment; (c) a desire to feel a sense of belongingness at the workplace; and (d) the intersection of disability characteristics, individual characteristics, and work environment characteristics that influences how people with disabilities are treated on the job. Implications are presented for understanding the role that rehabilitation counselors play in helping workers and employers to respond to mistreatment of employees with disabilities.