Effect of a Community Health Worker-Delivered Personal Sound Amplification Device on Self-Perceived Communication Function in Older Adults With Hearing Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The clinical use of personal hearing amplifiers in facilitating accessible patient-provider communication: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Older adults with hearing loss struggle to communicate with care providers and experience higher mortality rates when hospitalized (Genther et al., 2015), even after controlling for age and comorbidities. Personal hearing amplifiers (PHAs), (e.g., Pocketalkers™), can improve communication with older patients.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify research gaps and summarize findings on the clinical use of PHAs with patients with hearing loss. After refining search terms relating to hearing loss and PHAs, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC (Proquest), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry. We identified articles published in English between 1980 and 2022 that reported empirical outcomes relating to PHA use in clinical settings. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles. We then organized data into an evidence map, and a narrative review summarizing outcomes.

RESULTS

From 4234 initially identified titles and abstracts, 12 met our criteria as full texts. These included three surveys on clinicians' awareness and use of PHAs, one evaluation of the acoustic output of a PHA, and eight interventions wherein PHAs were provided to patients with hearing loss. These papers used 10 different terms for PHAs and largely did not cite one another. Results showed high levels of satisfaction with PHAs, and consistently improved speech understanding. Despite this, care providers used devices inconsistently, with challenges around provider awareness, and device maintenance and location tracking.

CONCLUSIONS

PHAs have a consistent positive effect on patients' ability to understand their care providers despite hearing loss. Barriers and facilitators to their use in clinical settings should be further explored.

Prevalence of self-reported hearing difficulty on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and associated factors

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is common in aging adults and is an important public health concern. Self-reported measures of hearing difficulty are often used in research and clinical practice, as they capture the functional impacts of hearing loss on individuals. However, little research has evaluated the prevalence or factors associated with self-reported hearing difficulty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of self-reported hearing difficulty, measured by the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI), and associated factors.

METHODS

This study was conducted in a community-based cohort study based in Charleston, SC. We determined the prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty (score ≥ 6 points) and evaluated associated factors with logistic regression models. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

There were 1558 participants included in this study (mean age 63.7 [SD 14.4], 56.9% female, 20.0% Minority race). The prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty was 48.8%. In a multivariable model, older age (per + 1 year; OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.96, 0.98]), Minority (vs. White) race (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.49, 0.94]), and speech-in-noise scores that are better than predicted (OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98, 1.00]) were associated with lower odds of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty. Furthermore, female (vs. male) sex (OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.03, 1.86]), higher PTA in the worse ear (per + 1 dB; OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.09, 1.12]), more comorbid conditions (vs. 0; 1 condition: OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.07, 2.11]; 2 conditions: OR 1.96 [95% CI 1.32, 2.93]; 3 + conditions: OR 3.00 [95% CI 1.60, 5.62]), noise exposure (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.16, 2.03]), bothersome tinnitus (OR 2.16 [95% CI 1.59, 2.93]), and more depressive symptoms (OR 1.04 [95% CI 1.01, 1.07]) were associated with higher odds of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty is high, and associated factors included demographics, audiometric hearing and other hearing-related factors, and physical and mental health. The RHHI likely captures functional impacts of hearing loss that are not captured by audiometry alone. Study findings can support the correct interpretation of the RHHI in research and clinical settings.

Plain Language Summary: Age-Related Hearing Loss

The plain language summary explains age-related hearing loss to patients, families, and care partners. The summary is for any patient aged 50 years and older, families, and care partners. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for clinicians. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Association Between Hearing Difficulty and Mobility in Adults of All Ages: National Health Interview Survey

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between hearing difficulty and measures of mobility for US adults.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

2021 National Health Interview Survey.

METHODS

The survey asked US adults about hearing difficulty and mobility measures, including difficulty walking 100 yards, difficulty climbing 12 steps, and injury from falling within the past 3 months. Multivariable logistic regressions examined the associations between hearing and mobility outcomes, controlling for visual difficulty, medical comorbidities, and various demographic characteristics (age [18-39, 40-64, 65+], race/ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status).

RESULTS

The 2021 NHIS surveyed 29,467 adults, representing 253 million people in weighted responses (52% female; mean age 48.3, standard deviation = 18.6). Controlling for covariates, hearing difficulty was associated with increased odds of difficulty walking 100 yards (odds ratio, OR = 1.47, P < .001), difficulty climbing stairs (OR = 1.62, P < .001), and injury from falling in the past 3 months (OR = 1.51, P < .001). There was a significant interaction between age and hearing difficulty for injurious falls; stratifying by age revealed that younger adults (ages 18-39) with hearing difficulty were more likely to report recent harmful falls than their normal hearing peers; this increased risk was greater in magnitude than that observed comparing older adults with and without hearing difficulty.

CONCLUSION

The hearing difficulty is associated with worsened mobility for US adults and may be a stronger independent predictor of injury from falls for younger adults as compared to older adults. These findings can inform interventions to reduce the burden of declining mobility in adults with hearing difficulty.

What's in a name? A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing losses

OBJECTIVE

To assess non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and the impact of device features on outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospectively registered systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Ten studies evaluating personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), and four evaluating smartphone amplification applications (or apps). Devices were classified as "premium" or "basic" based on the number of compression channels (≥16 or <16, respectively).

RESULTS

Meta-analyses showed that premium PSAPs improved speech intelligibility in noise performance compared to unaided, whereas basic PSAPs and smartphone apps did not. Premium PSAPs performed better than basic hearing aids. Premium hearing aids performed better than premium and basic PSAPs, smartphone apps, and basic hearing aids. Although data could not be pooled, similar findings were also found for quality of life, listening ability, cognition, feasibility, and adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Premium PSAPs appear to be an effective non-medical amplification device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Given the overlap in features available, it may be that this is a key consideration when drawing comparisons between devices, rather than the device being named a PSAP or hearing aid. Nevertheless, the extent to which PSAPs are effective without audiological input remains to be determined.

Interventions to improve social network in older people with sensory impairment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sensory impairment significantly reduces speech discrimination and perception ability, presenting a challenge to effective communication. It can lead to social withdrawal and a reduced social network which can lead to cognitive impairment, seriously affecting the quality of life of older people. However, it is unclear which intervention components are effective to improving social network in older people with sensory impairment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize interventions designed to improve social network in older people with sensory impairment.

METHODS

We searched seven databases from inception to December 1, 2023. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials (RCT) and quasi-experimental studies of interventions for older people with sensory impairment aimed at improving social networks. Two reviewers searched databases, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies independently.

RESULTS

Nine studies including five RCTs and four quasi-experimental studies were selected, enrolling 721 older people with sensory impairment. Methodological quality of the studies was modest. Eight studies demonstrated a positive impact of the interventions used in older people with sensory impairment. The detailed effective intervention components may include communication strategies, resources for older people and their significant others, exercise or tech-back of communication, sensory device fitting, and use and maintenance of sensory devices.

CONCLUSION

There are few interventions available for improving social network in older people with sensory impairment. Most interventions mainly focus on communication education and care, and sensory device fitting and education. To improve the social network in older people with sensory impairment, it is necessary to develop more effective, multidisciplinary collaborative effective interventions and conduct more high-quality original studies.

Service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in low- and middle-income countries or resource-limited settings: A systematic scoping review

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.

Potential Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in the US

Importance

Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are now available in the US; however, their clinical and economic outcomes are unknown.

Objective

To project the clinical and economic outcomes of traditional hearing aid provision compared with OTC hearing aid provision.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis used a previously validated decision model of hearing loss (HL) to simulate US adults aged 40 years and older across their lifetime in US primary care offices who experienced yearly probabilities of acquiring HL (0.1%-10.4%), worsening of their HL, and traditional hearing aid uptake (0.5%-8.1%/y at a fixed uptake cost of $3690) and utility benefits (0.11 additional utils/y). For OTC hearing aid provision, persons with perceived mild to moderate HL experienced increased OTC hearing aid uptake (1%-16%/y) based on estimates of time to first HL diagnosis. In the base case, OTC hearing aid utility benefits ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 additional utils/y (45%-100% of traditional hearing aids), and costs were $200 to $1400 (5%-38% of traditional hearing aids). Distributions were assigned to parameters to conduct probabilistic uncertainty analysis.

Intervention

Provision of OTC hearing aids, at increased uptake rates, across a range of effectiveness and costs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/y) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

Traditional hearing aid provision resulted in 18.162 QALYs, compared with 18.162 to 18.186 for OTC hearing aids varying with OTC hearing aid utility benefit (45%-100% that of traditional hearing aids). Provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater lifetime discounted costs by $70 to $200 along with OTC device cost ($200-$1000/pair; 5%-38% traditional hearing aid cost) due to increased hearing aid uptake. Provision of OTC hearing aids was considered cost-effective (ICER<$100 000/QALY) if the OTC utility benefit was 0.06 or greater (55% of the traditional hearing aid effectiveness). In probabilistic uncertainty analysis, OTC hearing aid provision was cost-effective in 53% of simulations.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater uptake of hearing intervention and was cost-effective over a range of prices so long as OTC hearing aids were greater than 55% as beneficial to patient quality of life as traditional hearing aids.