Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose: Digital and remote technologies are commonly used in audiology, which require digital literacy skills. The study objectives were to (a) assess digital literacy in adults with hearing loss attending an audiology clinic in Australia and (b) establish the relationship of digital literacy with demographic factors. Method: A single-center, cross-sectional survey on self-report of skill and confidence with mobile technologies using two measures (a) the validated Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire–16 items (MDPQ-16), and (b) the short two-item Digital Literacy-2Q (DL-2Q) for clinical use asking about Mobile Skill and Mobile Confidence. The study sample was adults with primarily mild–moderate hearing loss ( n = 110), aged 52–96 years ( M = 73.9). Results: Age was negatively associated with MDPQ-16 scores, r (108) = −0.454, p < .001. However, in the mid-age range 65–85 years, more than twice as many participants (69.7%) had good mobile proficiency compared to those who had poorer mobile proficiency (30.3%). For the DL-2Q, the 92% who rated themselves as competent , and the 58.3% and 41.0% who rated themselves as confident or depends on task , respectively, had good MDPQ-16 scores. However, in 25% there was a mismatch between ratings of competent and confident . No other demographic factors were significantly associated with digital literacy. Conclusions: Although age overall was a factor in digital literacy, there were many older adults attending audiology appointments who were shown to have good digital literacy, irrespective of their age. The DL-2Q is a quick and easy measure to assess digital literacy in audiology clinics. This can help to ensure that age is not barrier to remote hearing health technologies, which should be accessible to all those who would benefit. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30853604
Ferguson et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: