↓ Skip to main content

A psychologically informed, audiologist-delivered, manualised intervention for tinnitus: protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial (Tin Man study)

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A psychologically informed, audiologist-delivered, manualised intervention for tinnitus: protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial (Tin Man study)
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0137-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

John A. Taylor, Deborah A. Hall, Dawn-Marie Walker, Mary McMurran, Amanda Casey, David Stockdale, Debbie Featherstone, Dean M. Thompson, Carol MacDonald, Derek J. Hoare

Abstract

Chronic tinnitus is a common incurable condition often associated with depression, anxiety, insomnia and reduced quality of life. Within National Health Service (NHS) audiology in the United Kingdom (UK), no standard protocol currently exists for the treatment of tinnitus. Counselling is only available in less than half of audiology departments, and there is no agreed standard for what constitutes tinnitus counselling. There is substantial evidence from systematic reviews for the clinical benefit of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for tinnitus delivered by clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, but no studies have sufficiently evidenced the NHS model of tinnitus care where management is increasingly being delivered by audiology professionals. In a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), this study aims to evaluate the feasibility of comparing a psychologically informed guidance manual developed to support audiologist management of tinnitus with usual treatment. Phase 1 consisted of three development stages: (1) a scoping review to generate a comprehensive set of tinnitus counselling components, (2) a Delphi survey involving expert patients (n = 18) and clinicians (n = 21) to establish consensus on the essential core attributes of tinnitus counselling, and (3) incorporation of these elements into a manualised care protocol. In phase 2, following training in a dedicated workshop, the manualised intervention will be delivered by three experienced audiologists across three different sites. Patients (n = 30) will be randomly allocated to receive either (1) psychologically informed management from an audiologist trained to deliver the manualised intervention or (2) treatment as usual (TAU) from an audiologist who has not received this training. Quantitative outcome measures will be administered at baseline, discharge and 6-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews with participating patients and clinicians will be conducted to gather perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of the manualised intervention. The feasibility of proceeding to a definitive RCT will be assessed via compliance with the manual, willingness to be randomised, number of eligible participants, rate of recruitment, retention and collection of quantitative outcome measures. This research offers an important first step to an evidence-based, standardised and accessible approach to tinnitus care. ISRCTN13059163. Date of registration: 6 May 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Psychology 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,893,544
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#802
of 1,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,743
of 309,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.