Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis

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.

Hearing rehabilitation of adults with auditory processing disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence-based interventions

Background

For adults with auditory processing disorder (APD), listening and communicating can be difficult, potentially leading to social isolation, depression, employment difficulties and certainly reducing the quality of life. Despite existing practice guidelines suggesting treatments, the efficacy of these interventions remains uncertain due to a lack of comprehensive reviews. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to establish current evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for APD in adults, addressing the urgent need for clarity in the field.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and Scopus, focusing on intervention studies involving adults with APD. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were grouped according to intervention with a meta-analysis only conducted where intervention, study design and outcome measure were comparable.

Results

Out of 1,618 screened records, 13 studies were included, covering auditory training (AT), low-gain hearing aids (LGHA), and personal remote microphone systems (PRMS). Our analysis revealed: AT, Mixed results with some improvements in speech intelligibility and listening ability, indicating potential benefits but highlighting the need for standardized protocols; LGHA, The included studies demonstrated significant improvements in monaural low redundancy speech testing (p < 0.05), suggesting LGHA could enhance speech perception in noisy environments. However, limitations include small sample sizes and potential biases in study design. PRMS, Demonstrated the most consistent evidence of benefit, significantly improving speech testing results, with no additional benefit from combining PRMS with other interventions.

Discussion

PRMS presents the most evidence-supported intervention for adults with APD, although further high-quality research is crucial for all intervention types. The establishment and implementation of standardized intervention protocols alongside rigorously validated outcome measures will enable a more evidence-based approach to managing APD in adults.

Comparative Effectiveness of Personal Sound Amplification Products Versus Hearing Aids for Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

This study compared hearing outcomes with use of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) and hearing aids (HAs) in patients with moderate to moderately severe unilateral hearing loss.

METHODS

Thirty-nine participants were prospectively enrolled, and randomly assigned to use either one HA (basic or premium type) or one PSAP (basic or high-end type) for the first 8 weeks and then the other device for the following 8 weeks. Participants underwent a battery of examinations at three visits, including sound-field audiometry, word recognition score (WRS), speech perception in quiet and in noise, real-ear measurement, and self-report questionnaires.

RESULTS

Functional gain was significantly higher with HAs across all frequencies (P < 0.001). While both PSAPs and HAs improved WRS from the unaided condition, HAs were superior to PSAPs. The speech recognition threshold in quiet conditions and signal-to-noise ratio in noisy conditions were significantly lower in the HA-aided condition than in the PSAP-aided condition, and in the PSAP-aided condition than in the unaided condition. Subjective satisfaction also favored HAs than PSAPs in questionnaires, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids, and Host Institutional Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

While PSAPs provide some benefit for moderate to moderately severe unilateral hearing loss, HAs are more effective. This underscores the potential role of PSAPs as an accessible, affordable first-line intervention in hearing rehabilitation, particularly for individuals facing challenges in accessing conventional HAs.

Consumer and audiologist perspectives on hearables: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore (i) what adults with hearing difficulties want and need from hearables, which we defined as any non-medical personal sound amplification product, and (ii) what hearing care professionals think about hearables.

DESIGN

This was an exploratory, qualitative study conducted using separate focus groups with adults with hearing difficulties and audiologists. Data were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 12 adults with hearing difficulties and 6 audiologists.

RESULTS

Adults with hearing difficulties expressed desire for trustworthy information and support, described evaluating hearables and other devices according to diverse personal criteria, and expressed willingness to vary their budget according to product quality. Audiologists expressed views that hearables are an inferior product but useful tool, that it is not necessarily their role to assist with hearables, that hearables are a source of uncertainty, and that the provision of hearables by audiologists is not currently practical.

CONCLUSION

Adults with hearing difficulties may have complex reasons for considering hearables and may desire a high level of clinical support in this area. Ongoing research into the efficacy and effectiveness of hearables is needed together with research into effective strategies to incorporate hearables into clinical practice.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Non-Self-Fitting Presets Compared to Prescription Hearing Aid Fittings and a Personal Sound Amplification Product

PURPOSE

In this study, we compare the efficacy and effectiveness of gain-frequency responses of evidence-based presets developed by our lab for over-the-counter hearing aids to conventional National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure, version 2 (NAL-NL2) gain-frequency response and to gain-frequency response of a personal sound amplification product (PSAP). We hypothesized that the hearing aids with our presets would perform better than a PSAP with poor frequency response and comparably to the hearing aid with NAL-NL2 frequency response.

METHOD

We used a single-blinded, randomized cross-over design to compare audibility, speech recognition, sound quality, listening effort, and subjective preferences in 37 participants in laboratory settings and following field trials.

RESULTS

The presets developed in our lab showed comparable outcomes to the hearing aids with NAL-NL2 gain-frequency response in most measured domains. Performance with the presets was better than the PSAP gain-frequency response in the domains of listening effort and sound quality in laboratory testing and speech recognition in our real-world measures. We also found that most participants (54.05%) preferred our presets over the PSAPs and were willing to pay significantly more to purchase the hearing aids with our presets.

CONCLUSION

Our evidence-based presets have better outcomes than a PSAP with a single, poorly suited frequency response while performing comparably to the clinical best-practice National Acoustic Laboratories condition.

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

There are many examples of remote technologies that are clinically effective and provide numerous benefits to adults with hearing loss. Despite this, the uptake of remote technologies for hearing healthcare has been both low and slow until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a key driver for change globally. The time is now right to take advantage of the many benefits that remote technologies offer, through clinical, consumer, or hybrid services and channels. These include greater access and choice, better interactivity and engagement, and tailoring of technologies to individual needs, leading to clients who are better informed, enabled, and empowered to self-manage their hearing loss. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence-base across a range of remote technologies along the hearing health journey. This includes qualitative, as well as quantitative, methods to ensure the end-users' voice is at the core of the research, thereby promoting person-centered principles. Most of these remote technologies are available and some are already in use, albeit not widespread. Finally, whenever new technologies or processes are implemented into services, be they clinical, hybrid, or consumer, careful consideration needs to be given to the required behavior change of the key people (e.g., clients and service providers) to facilitate and optimize implementation.

Interindividual variability in the benefits of personal sound amplification products on speech perception in noise: A randomized cross-over clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aging population is prone to hearing loss, which has several adverse effects on quality of life, including difficulty following conversations in noisy environments. Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs) are a less expensive, over-the-counter alternative to traditional, more expensive hearing aids. Although some studies have shown that PSAPs can mitigate hearing loss, the literature generally only addresses group differences without considering interindividual variability. This study aimed to 1) determine how PSAPs affect listening effort and speech perception in noise and 2) measure interindividual variability and identify contributing demographic and health factors.

DESIGN

We used a cross-over design in which all participants were assigned to each condition.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight adults aged 60 to 87 years with normal hearing and mild hearing loss fulfilled the study requirements.

INTERVENTION

In one session, speech-in-noise perception tasks were performed without PSAPs, and in the other, the tasks were performed with bilateral PSAPs. The two sessions were separated by one week, and the order of the sessions was balanced across participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In both sessions, participants performed the Quick speech-in-noise test and a word discrimination task in noise, in which their self-reported listening effort was measured.

RESULTS

PSAPs use improved speech perception in noise in both tasks and reduced listening effort. There was considerable variability between individuals, with approximately 60-70% of participants showing benefit. Age, hearing and cognitive status were significant predictors of the benefits.

CONCLUSION

Not all individuals may benefit from the effect of PSAPs to the same extent at their first use, and this depends on specific health and demographic factors, particularly age, hearing, and cognitive status. These results underscore the importance of demographic and health factors in assessing the benefits of hearing amplification in older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05076045.

Prioritizing research on over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids for age-related hearing loss

Hearing aids are the most commonly used treatment for people with age-related hearing loss, however, hearing aid uptake is low, primarily due to high cost of the device, stigma, and a lack of perceived need. To address accessibility and affordability issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration created a new over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid category. Various types of hearing devices are available for both individuals with hearing loss and for those with normal hearing, as hearing enhancement devices. Hearing aids (i.e., prescription hearing aids, self-fitting OTC hearing aids, and pre-set OTC hearing aids) are regulated by the FDA. The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a summary of existing research on direct-to-consumer (DTC) hearing devices such as Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs) that informs OTC service delivery models; (b) provide an update on existing and ongoing randomized controlled trials on currently marketed OTC hearing aids; and (c) highlight the need for immediate research on OTC hearing aids and service delivery models to inform policy and clinical care. It remains to be seen what effect OTC hearing aids have on improving the uptake of hearing aids by individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, there is scant research on all aspects of OTC hearing aids that are currently on the market. We conclude that high quality independent research must be prioritized to supplement evidence provided by the OTC hearing aid manufacturers for regulatory approval purposes.

The Effect of the Intra-Arterial Heparin Flushing (IAHF) Procedure on Hearing Threshold in Sensorineural Hearing Loss Patients

Background

Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is a frequent problem in Indonesia but its treatment is still limited. This type of hearing loss is related to oxidative stress and decreased vascularization, which can damage the hair cell. The intra-arterial heparin flushing (IAHF) is a procedure that can recover circulation and its agent, namely heparin, also has antioxidant activity. Therefore, the IAHF procedure has the potential to improve hearing function and can be considered an alternative therapy for SNHL.

Objective

The study evaluates the effect of the IAHF on hearing improvement based on the difference in hearing threshold values before and after the procedure.

Methods

This experimental study used a Pretest-Posttest One-Group Only design. A total of 17 patients with sensorineural hearing loss who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were subjected to pure tone audiometry tests before and 4 hours after the IAHF procedure. The mean difference in hearing threshold was analyzed using paired Students t-test for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon for non-normally distributed data.

Results

There was a decrease in the means of hearing threshold in the right and left ear 4 hours after the IAHF procedure. However, based on the paired Students t-test, there was not a significant difference in hearing threshold before and after the procedure (p-value > 0.05).

Conclusion

There was hearing threshold improvement 4 hours after the IAHF procedure. This study showed that the IAHF procedure can have a therapeutic effect on sensorineural hearing loss patients.

The Online HEARRING Counselling 1.0 Platform Provides Clinicians with Comprehensive Information on Hearing Device Solutions for Conductive, Mixed, and Sensorineural Hearing Loss

A platform to help clinicians ensure that hearing device candidates are informed about the benefits and drawbacks of their recommended treatment option would be of clinical counselling benefit because it could help each candidate form realistic expectations about life with their treatment option. Following the World Café approach, 54 participants (surgeons, audiologist, and researchers) generated lists of the benefits and drawbacks of each treatment option for single-sided deafness (SSD) and bone conduction (BC) solutions. They then prioritized the benefits and drawbacks. After the World Café, literature research was performed on each topic to check if the statements (on benefits and drawbacks) are supported by quality peer-reviewed publications. Each participant was surveyed to ensure a collective agreement was reached. The HEARRING Counselling 1.0 Platform was developed. Thus far, sections for SSD and BC solutions have been completed. Initial feedback has been highly positive. The platform will be expanded to cover middle ear implant solutions and cochlear implants. A plan is in place to ensure the information continues to be timely. The HEARRING Counselling 1.0 helps clinicians provide comprehensive information to candidates about their treatment option and thereby helps establish that candidates have realistic expectations about the benefits and drawbacks of device use.

Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Results from the MarkeTrak 2022 Survey: Importance of Features and Hearing Care Professionals

The hearing aid market is rapidly evolving with advancements in features and potential changes in service delivery models, including the new over-the-counter device category. Data from the MarkeTrak 2022 survey indicate most hearing aid owners report regular quality-of-life benefits from hearing aids, even more than in previous surveys. The increased likelihood of hearing aid benefits might be attributable to modern hearing aid features advancements, such as wireless connectivity and rechargeable batteries. Hearing aid satisfaction rates have been relatively stable over the years, indicating that more than 80% of hearing aid owners are satisfied with their devices. Hearing aid satisfaction rates do not appreciably vary by fitting channel; hearing aid owners fitted in person, fitted remotely, or self-fit are similarly likely to report high satisfaction with their device. However, only respondents in the in-person channel gave establishment ratings (reflecting their willingness to recommend) that resulted and reflected a positive net promoter score. Given the potential for net promoter scores to be related to brand growth and customer loyalty, this finding has implications for the development of over-the-counter hearing aid service-delivery models. Additional work is warranted to explore the factors that negatively affect hearing aid owners' satisfaction with the companies delivering limited services.

Smartphone-bundled earphones as personal sound amplification products in adults with sensorineural hearing loss

Given the low prevalence of hearing aid use among individuals with hearing loss due to their high costs and social stigma, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) may serve as alternatives with adequate hearing compensation and greater accessibility. This study examined the electroacoustic features of hearing aids and selected smartphone-bundled earphones, specifically AirPods, as PSAPs, and compared hearing performances among adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when aided with each hearing assistive device. Our results indicated that AirPods Pro met four out of five PSAP standards. No significant differences were found regarding speech perception between AirPods Pro and hearing aids in quiet but not with the presence of background noises. AirPods Pro may have the potential to be a hearing assistive device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. More research is needed to investigate the safety and feasibility of using earphones bundled with other smartphones as PSAPs.