Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients' Perspective

Manual switching between programs intended for specific real-life listening environments by adult cochlear implant users: do they use the intended program?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to investigate the use of manually and automatically switching programs in everyday day life by adult cochlear implant (CI) users.

DESIGN

Participants were fitted with an automatically switching sound processor setting and 2 manual programs for 3-week study periods. They received an extensive counselling session. Datalog information was used to analyse the listening environments identified by the sound processor, the program used and the number of program switches.

STUDY SAMPLES

Fifteen adult Cochlear CI users. Average age 69 years (range: 57-85 years).

RESULTS

Speech recognition in noise was significantly better with the "noise" program than with the "quiet" program. On average, participants correctly classified 4 out of 5 listening environments in a laboratory setting. Participants switched, on average, less than once a day between the 2 manual programs and the sound processor was in the intended program 60% of the time.

CONCLUSION

Adult CI users switch rarely between two manual programs and leave the sound processor often in a program not intended for the specific listening environment. A program that switches automatically between settings, therefore, seems to be a more appropriate option to optimise speech recognition performance in daily listening environments.

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 at the Mall: Multibeam Processing Technology Improves Hearing Group Conversations in a Real-World Food Court Environment

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate conversation hearing with an adaptive beamforming hearing aid that supports adaptive tracking of multiple talkers in an ecologically valid, real-world food court environment in a busy mall.

METHOD

Twenty older adult experienced hearing aid wearers with sensorineural hearing loss were fitted in the lab with binaural receiver-in-the-canal style hearing aids set with two programs, each having a different beamforming strategy. The participant and two researchers then met in a moderately noisy and reverberant food court at a local mall where the participant was asked to listen to a conversation between the two researchers. Participants rated the extent of their agreement with 10 positively worded statements specific to the conversation twice, once for each program. Participants then provided program-preference ratings for seven different aspects of a conversation during which the programs were switched back and forth by the researcher, so that participants were unaware of the condition to which they were listening.

RESULTS

Real-world subjective ratings for all domains resulted in positive values on average for both programs. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the intervention algorithm had higher absolute ratings on five of the 10 criteria including understanding, clarity, focus, listening effort, and background noise. Ratings for preference between programs indicated a significant preference for the intervention algorithm for all seven criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, the use of hearing aids with separate processing of sounds from the front and back hemisphere provided positive subjective ratings. However, following a group conversation with multiple conversation partners, improvements in the algorithm to account for the locations of interlocutors and the natural head turning of the hearing aid wearer that occurs during a conversation by adding and controlling multiple adaptive beams in the front hemisphere significantly influenced preference for all aspects rated.

Development and initial evaluation of the Hearing Aid Attribute and Feature Importance Evaluation (HAFIE) questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a novel questionnaire aimed at providing a structured, evidence-based methodology for hearing aid recommendation and selection using self-reported importance ratings for different modern hearing aid features.

DESIGN

The initial questionnaire items were created through a concept mapping approach that involved input from hearing aid users. Hearing care professional focus groups (n = 10) were conducted to assess questionnaire content and design, and to guide modifications. Validation of this initial 34-item version of the questionnaire was conducted using an anonymous online survey tool (Qualtrics). Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the dataset, using principal axis factoring. Questionnaire reliability and inter-item correlation were assessed. Items with low factor loading and high cross-loading were removed.

STUDY SAMPLE

Two hundred and eighteen adult participants with a self-reported hearing loss (median age = 48 years, range = 18-95 years) completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Analysis and item removal resulted in a 28-item questionnaire. Three factors were identified, dividing the hearing aid features into the subscales: "Advanced connectivity & streaming", "Physical attributes & usability", and "Sound quality & intelligibility".

CONCLUSION

This study has resulted in a patient-oriented questionnaire that allows clinicians to gather patient input in a structured manner.

Longitudinal Policy Surveillance of Private Insurance Hearing Aid Mandates in the United States: 1997-2022

Objectives. To produce a database of private insurance hearing aid mandates in the United States and quantify the share of privately insured individuals covered by a mandate. Methods. We used health-related policy surveillance methods to create a database of private insurance hearing aid mandates through January 2023. We coded salient features of mandates and combined policy data with American Community Survey and Medicare Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component data to estimate the share of privately insured US residents covered by a mandate from 2008 to 2022. Results. A total of 26 states and 1 territory had private insurance hearing aid mandates. We found variability for mandate exceptions, maximum age eligibility, allowable frequency of benefit use, and coverage amounts. Between 2008 and 2022 the proportion of privately insured youths (aged ≤ 18 years) living where there was a private insurance hearing aid mandate increased from 3.4% to 18.7% and the proportion of privately insured adults (19-64 years) increased from 0.3% to 4.6%. Conclusions. Hearing aid mandates cover a small share of US residents. Mandate exceptions in several states limit coverage, particularly for adults. Public Health Implications. A federal mandate would improve hearing aid access. States can also improve access by adopting exception-free mandates with limited utilization management and no age restrictions. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(4):407-414. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307551).

Effects of entropy in real-world noise on speech perception in listeners with normal hearing and hearing lossa)

Hearing aids show more benefit in traditional laboratory speech-in-noise tests than in real-world noisy environments. Real-world noise comprises a large range of acoustic properties that vary randomly and rapidly between and within environments, making quantifying real-world noise and using it in experiments and clinical tests challenging. One approach is to use acoustic features and statistics to quantify acoustic properties of real-world noise and control for them or measure their relationship to listening performance. In this study, the complexity of real-world noise from different environments was quantified using entropy in both the time- and frequency-domains. A distribution of noise segments from low to high entropy were extracted. Using a trial-by-trial design, listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss (in aided and unaided conditions) repeated back sentences embedded in these noise segments. Entropy significantly affected speech perception, with a larger effect of entropy in the time-domain than the frequency-domain, a larger effect for listeners with normal hearing than for listeners with hearing loss, and a larger effect for listeners with hearing loss in the aided than unaided condition. Speech perception also differed between most environment types. Combining entropy with the environment type improved predictions of speech perception above the environment type alone.

Direct Bluetooth connectivity results in better hearing aid compliance in children

OBJECTIVE

To determine if hearing aid use in school aged children is impacted when upgraded to direct Bluetooth® enabled technology. We hypothesized that because children are better able to connect to their devices and headphones, they would be more inclined to use their hearing aids throughout the day, resulting in an increase in hearing aid compliance.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis examined changes in datalogging of hours of usage per day in 51 school aged children who underwent an upgrade from non-direct Bluetooth® hearing technology to direct Bluetooth®-enabled hearing technology.

RESULTS

Hours per day of hearing aid use in all hearing aid users significantly increased after upgrading to DBT enabled technology (6.82 vs 9.82, <0.001). There were no significant differences noted in hours before and after upgrade depending on race (p = 0.147), gender (p = 0.887), developmental delay (p = 0.749), type of hearing loss (p = 0.218), and degree of hearing loss (p = 0.551). However, when comparing private versus Medicaid insurance, there was noted to be a significant difference with the odds of an increase in hours of usage after upgrade being higher for those patients privately insured (OR = 1.247, p < 0.001, 95 % CI 1.093-1.422).

CONCLUSION

Direct Bluetooth® enabled hearing technology positively impacts children's hearing aid compliance, which has the potential improve speech and language outcomes.

Exploring Factors That Contribute to the Success of Rehabilitation With Hearing Aids

OBJECTIVES

Hearing aids are an essential and important part of hearing rehabilitation. The combination of technical data on hearing aids and individual rehabilitation needs can give insight into the factors that contribute to the success of rehabilitation. This study sets out to investigate if different subgroups of (comparable) hearing aids lead to differences in the success of rehabilitation, and whether these differences vary between different domains of auditory functioning.

DESIGN

This study explored the advantages of including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the process of purchasing new hearing aids in a large sample of successful hearing aid users. Subject data were obtained from 64 (commercial) hearing aid dispensers and 10 (noncommercial) audiological centers in the Netherlands. The PROM was a 32-item questionnaire and was used to determine the success of rehabilitation using hearing aids by measuring auditory disability over time. The items were mapped on six domains of auditory functioning: detection, discrimination, localization, speech in quiet, speech in noise, and noise tolerance, encompassing a variety of daily-life listening situations. Hearing aids were grouped by means of cluster analysis, resulting in nine subgroups. In total, 1149 subjects were included in this study. A general linear model was used to model the final PROM results. Model results were analyzed via a multifactor Analysis of Variance. Post hoc analyses provided detailed information on model variables.

RESULTS

Results showed a strong statistically significant effect of hearing aids on self-perceived auditory functioning in general. Clinically relevant differences were found for auditory domains including detection, speech in quiet, speech in noise, and localization. There was only a small, but significant, effect of the different subgroups of hearing aids on the final PROM results, where no differences were found between the auditory domains. Minor differences were found between results obtained in commercial and noncommercial settings, or between novice and experienced users. Severity of Hearing loss, age, gender, and hearing aid style (i.e., behind-the-ear versus receiver-in-canal type) did not have a clinically relevant effect on the final PROM results.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of hearing aids has a large positive effect on self-perceived auditory functioning. There was however no salient effect of the different subgroups of hearing aids on the final PROM results, indicating that technical properties of hearing aids only play a limited role in this respect. This study challenges the belief that premium devices outperform basic ones, highlighting the need for personalized rehabilitation strategies and the importance of evaluating factors contributing to successful rehabilitation for clinical practice.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Wireless Binaural Beamforming Technology of Hearing Aids in Improving Speech Perception in Noise: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to address the following research questions: Q1. Does wireless binaural beamforming technology perform better than conventional microphone technologies in improving the speech perception in noise abilities of individuals with hearing aids bilaterally? and Q2. Do the subjective rating scores of hearing aid benefits suggest that wireless binaural beamforming technology is better than other microphone technologies?

DESIGN

Two independent authors performed a comprehensive search utilizing electronic databases like PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Aside from these databases, course transcripts, white papers, evidence, and field study articles from various manufacturer websites were also included. The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included for the qualitative synthesis. The available data were categorized into three groups (bilateral omnidirectional, bilateral directional, and bilateral asymmetric directional microphone processing) and compared against wireless binaural beamformers. The results of the Sign test revealed that for Q1, the wireless binaural beamformer significantly outperformed the bilateral omnidirectional microphone processing. However, no significant differences were observed when compared with other groups. Results for Q2 showed no significant improvement in wireless binaural beamformers compared to other groups.

CONCLUSION

The superior performance of the wireless binaural beamformers over conventional microphone technologies was demonstrated by the speech perception in noise tasks but not by the self-reported subjective ratings. Nevertheless, the evidence for both speech perception noise and subjective ratings was weak.

Impact of hearing aid technology level at first-fit on self-reported outcomes in patients with presbycusis: a randomized controlled trial

To provide clinical guidance in hearing aid prescription for older adults with presbycusis, we investigated differences in self-reported hearing abilities and hearing aid effectiveness for premium or basic hearing aid users. Secondly, as an explorative analysis, we investigated if differences in gain prescription verified with real-ear measurements explain differences in self-reported outcomes. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the patients were blinded towards the purpose of the study. In total, 190 first-time hearing aid users (>60 years of age) with symmetric bilateral presbycusis were fitted with either a premium or basic hearing aid. The randomization was stratified on age, sex, and word recognition score. Two outcome questionnaires were distributed: the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the short form of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-12). In addition, insertion gains were calculated from real-ear measurements at first-fit for all fitted hearing aids. Premium hearing aid users reported 0.7 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher total SSQ-12 score per item and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.4) scale points higher speech score per item, as well as 0.6 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher qualities score compared to basic-feature hearing aid users. No significant differences in reported hearing aid effectiveness were found using the IOI-HA. Differences in the prescribed gain at 1 and 2 kHz were observed between premium and basic hearing aids within each company. Premium-feature devices yielded slightly better self-reported hearing abilities than basic-feature devices, but a statistically significant difference was only found in three out of seven outcome variables, and the effect was small. The generalizability of the study is limited to community-dwelling older adults with presbycusis. Thus, further research is needed for understanding the potential effects of hearing aid technology for other populations. Hearing care providers should continue to insist on research to support the choice of more costly premium technologies when prescribing hearing aids for older adults with presbycusis. Clinical Trial Registration: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04539847.

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit

Hearing aid verification with real-ear measurement (REM) is recommended in clinical practice. Improvements, over time, in accuracy of manufacturers' initial fit mean the benefit of routine REM for new adult users is unclear. This registered, double-blinded, randomized, mixed-methods clinical trial aimed to (i) determine whether new adult hearing aid users prefer initial or real-ear fit and (ii) investigate the reasons for preferences. New adult hearing aid users (n = 45) were each fitted with two programs: the initial fit and real-ear fit, both with adjustments based on immediate feedback from the patient. Participants were asked to complete daily paired-comparisons of the two programs with a magnitude estimation of the preference, one for each of clarity/comfort in quiet/noise as well as overall preference. The results revealed gain adjustment requests were low in number and small in magnitude. Deviation from NAL-NL2 targets (after adjustment for a 65 dB SPL input) was close to zero, except at high frequencies where real-ear fits were around 3 dB closer to target. There was no difference in clarity ratings between programs, but comfort ratings favored initial fit. Overall, 10 participants (22%) expressed a preference for real-ear fit. Reasons for preference were primarily based on comfort with the initial fit and clarity with real-ear fit. It may be acceptable to fit new adult users with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without the need for REMs, if the primary outcome of interest is user preference. It remains to be seen if the findings generalize to other fitting software, other outcome measures and more severe hearing loss.

Ecological Validity, External Validity, and Mundane Realism in Hearing Science

Tests of hearing function are typically conducted in conditions very different from those in which people need to hear and communicate. Even when test conditions are more similar, they cannot represent the diversity of situations that may be encountered by individuals in daily life. As a consequence, it is necessary to consider external validity: the extent to which findings are likely to generalize to conditions beyond those in which data are collected. External validity has long been a concern in many fields and has led to the development of theories and methods aimed at improving generalizability of laboratory findings. Within hearing science, along with related fields, efforts to address generalizability have come to focus heavily on realism: the extent to which laboratory conditions are similar to conditions found in everyday settings of interest. In fact, it seems that realism is now tacitly equated with generalizability. The term that has recently been applied to this approach by many researchers is ecological validity . Recent usage of the term ecological validity within hearing science, as well as other fields, is problematic for three related reasons: (i) it encourages the conflation of the separate concepts of realism and validity; (ii) it diverts attention from the need for methods of quantifying generalization directly; and (iii) it masks a useful longstanding definition of ecological validity within the field of ecological psychology. The definition of ecological validity first used within ecological psychology-the correlation between cues received at the peripheral nervous system and the identity of distant objects or events in the environment-is entirely different from its current usage in hearing science and many related fields. However, as part of an experimental approach known as representative design , the original concept of ecological validity can play a valuable role in facilitating generalizability. This paper will argue that separate existing terms should be used when referring to realism and generalizability, and that the definition of ecological validity provided by the Lens Model may be a valuable conceptual tool within hearing science.

Is speech intelligibility what speech intelligibility tests test?

Natural, conversational speech signals contain sources of symbolic and iconic information, both of which are necessary for the full understanding of speech. But speech intelligibility tests, which are generally derived from written language, present only symbolic information sources, including lexical semantics and syntactic structures. Speech intelligibility tests exclude almost all sources of information about talkers, including their communicative intentions and their cognitive states and processes. There is no reason to suspect that either hearing impairment or noise selectively affect perception of only symbolic information. We must therefore conclude that diagnosis of good or poor speech intelligibility on the basis of standard speech tests is based on measurement of only a fraction of the task of speech perception. This paper presents a descriptive comparison of information sources present in three widely used speech intelligibility tests and spontaneous, conversational speech elicited using a referential communication task. The aim of this comparison is to draw attention to the differences in not just the signals, but the tasks of listeners perceiving these different speech signals and to highlight the implications of these differences for the interpretation and generalizability of speech intelligibility test results.

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

Background

Hearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187).

Findings

Of 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I 2=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I 2=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I 2=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids.

Interpretation

PSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss in children: progression and involvement of the contralateral ear

BACKGROUND

Sensorineural hearing loss in child has a profound impact on their neurodevelopment and on language acquisition. Thus, the diagnosis and early intervention are critical, namely in unilateral or bilateral asymmetric hearing losses, which are diagnosed later than symmetric bilateral hearing losses.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to examine the progression of asymmetric SNHL in children, and the link between hearing thresholds and the technological level of the hearing aid fitted.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighteen children with asymmetric SNHL were submitted to a pure tone audiogram at the age of 5 years (T0) and reassessed at the age of 10 years (T1). Children were divided according to the technological level of the hearing aid fitted: basic, medium, and advanced.

RESULTS

A positive correlation was established between the hearing thresholds at T0 and T1, revealing an accelerated progression of hearing thresholds in the better ear after a 5-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing thresholds in the worse ear influence the progression of the SNHL. Moreover, technologically advanced hearing aids led to a slower progression of the hearing thresholds over time.

Consumer Ratings of the Most Desirable Hearing Aid Attributes

BACKGROUND

 Modern hearing aids have various features and functionalities, such as digital wireless streaming, bilateral connectivity, rechargeability, and specialized programs, which allow for a multitude of hearing aid attributes (e.g., comfort, reliability, and clarity). Consumers likely vary greatly in their preferences for these hearing aid attributes. Their preferences might be related to various demographic and hearing loss characteristics.

PURPOSE

 The purposes of this study were to describe which hearing aid attributes consumers find desirable when choosing their hearing aids and to explore factors that might predict preferences.

RESEARCH DESIGN

 Cross-sectional.

STUDY SAMPLE

 14,993.

INTERVENTION

 Not applicable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

 In this retrospective study, hearing aid attribute preferences were evaluated from consumers who answered questions in the Help Me Choose tool on the HearingTracker.com Web site. Chi-squared tests and correlation analyses were used to identify potential relationships between attribute preference and respondent characteristics. Cluster analysis with Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) was used to identify patterns of attribute preferences.

RESULTS

 Of the 21 hearing aid attributes queried, the four most favorably rated were improved ability to hear friends and family in quiet and in noisy settings, physical comfort, and reliability, with 75 to 88% of respondents rating these attributes as very or extremely important. Type of hearing loss, technology level preference, and mobile phone brand were significantly associated with preferences for all 21 hearing aid attributes. PAM cluster analysis unveiled two unique user groups based on their preference to hearing aid attributes. One-third of the respondents preferred high-end technology and favored all types of advanced attributes. The other two-thirds of users predominantly preferred either advanced or best match and were more selective about which attributes were most important to them.

CONCLUSION

 Patterns in preferences to hearing aid attributes help identify unique subgroups of consumers. Patient preferences for specific hearing aid attributes, in addition to audiologic characteristics, could help audiologists in recommending hearing aids for their patients.

Premium versus entry-level hearing aids: using group concept mapping to investigate the drivers of preference

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the difference in outcome measures and drivers of user preference between premium and entry-level hearing aids using group concept mapping.

DESIGN

A single-blind crossover trial was conducted. Aided behavioural outcomes measured were loudness rating, speech/consonant recognition, and speech quality. Preference between hearing aids was measured with a 7-point Likert scale. Group concept mapping was utilised to investigate preference results. Participants generated statements based on what influenced their preferences. These were sorted into categories with underlying themes. Participants rated each statement on a 5-point Likert scale of importance.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-three adult participants (mean: 62.4 years; range: 24-78) with mild to moderately severe bilateral SNHL (PTA_{500-4000 Hz} > 20 dB HL).

RESULTS

A total of 83 unique statements and nine distinct clusters, with underlying themes driving preference, were generated. Clusters that differed significantly in importance between entry-level and premium hearing aid choosers were: Having access to smartphone application-based user-controlled settings, the ability to stream calls and music, and convenience features such as accessory compatibility.

CONCLUSION

This study has identified non-signal-processing factors which significantly influenced preference for a premium hearing aid over an entry-level hearing aid, indicating the importance of these features as drivers of user preference.

Clinical Trials and Outcome Measures in Adults With Hearing Loss

Clinical trials are designed to evaluate interventions that prevent, diagnose or treat a health condition and provide the evidence base for improving practice in health care. Many health professionals, including those working within or allied to hearing health, are expected to conduct or contribute to clinical trials. Recent systematic reviews of clinical trials reveal a dearth of high quality evidence in almost all areas of hearing health practice. By providing an overview of important steps and considerations concerning the design, analysis and conduct of trials, this article aims to give guidance to hearing health professionals about the key elements that define the quality of a trial. The article starts out by situating clinical trials within the greater scope of clinical evidence, then discusses the elements of a PICO-style research question. Subsequently, various methodological considerations are discussed including design, randomization, blinding, and outcome measures. Because the literature on outcome measures within hearing health is as confusing as it is voluminous, particular focus is given to discussing how hearing-related outcome measures affect clinical trials. This focus encompasses how the choice of measurement instrument(s) affects interpretation, how the accuracy of a measure can be estimated, how this affects the interpretation of results, and if differences are statistically, perceptually and/or clinically meaningful to the target population, people with hearing loss.

Hearing Aid Consumer Reviews: A Linguistic Analysis in Relation to Benefit and Satisfaction Ratings

Purpose Online reviews have been used by hearing aid owners to share their experiences and to provide suggestions to potential hearing aid buyers, although they have not been systematically examined. The study was aimed at examining the hearing aid consumer reviews using automated linguistic analysis, and how the linguistic variables relate to self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings. Method The study used a cross-sectional design. One thousand three hundred seventy-eight consumer hearing aid reviews (i.e., text response to open-ended question), self-reported benefit and satisfaction ratings on hearing aids in a 5-point scale with meta-data (e.g., hearing aid brand, technology level) extracted from the Hearing Tracker website were analyzed using automated text analysis method known as the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Results Self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings were high (i.e., mean rating of 4.04 in a 5-point scale). Examining the association between overall rating and the key linguistic variables point to two broad findings. First, the more people were personally, socially, and emotionally engaged with the hearing device experience, the higher they rated their hearing device(s). Second, a minimal occurrence of clinic-visit language dimensions points to factors that likely affect benefit and satisfaction ratings. For example, if people mention paying too much money (money), their overall ratings are generally lower. Conversely, if people write about their health or home, the ratings were higher. There was no significant difference in linguistic analysis across different hearing aid brands and technology levels. Conclusions Hearing aid consumers are generally satisfied with their hearing device(s), and their online reviews contain information about social/emotional dimensions as well as clinic-visit related aspects that have bearing toward hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings. These results suggest that the natural language used by consumers provide insights on their perceived benefit/satisfaction from their hearing device.

Temporal analysis of hearing aids provision by the Brazilian Unified Health System

PURPOSE

To analyze the outpatient production of aspects of hearing aids (HA) provision by the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) between 2005 and 2018.

METHODS

This is an ecological time-series study, based on data from the Outpatient Information System of the SUS and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. The HA provision rates were analyzed with Joinpoint software. Descriptive analyses were carried out for technological categories, funding, HA replacement and audiological monitoring.

RESULTS

The South (9.96/10,000 inhabitants) and North (3.20/10,000 inhabitants) regions recorded the highest and lowest average rates, respectively. There were significant upward trends in HA provision in Brazil, in the North, Southeast and Midwest regions, with subsequent significant downward trends in the Southeast and Midwest. In the country, HA concession by technological categories was A (39.26%), B (36.93%) and C (23.81%), increasing funding. The Midwest (24.78%) and Northeast (14.22%) regions had the highest and lowest proportion of HA replacement, respectively. The audiological monitoring predominated in the Southeast (45.88%), with the lowest occurrence in the North (4.18%).

CONCLUSION

Between 2005 and 2018, trends fluctuated and discrepancies between geographic regions were observed in HA provision by the SUS, in addition to mismatches in the provision of technological categories and funding, a considerable proportion of replacements and insufficient audiological monitoring for HA users.

Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures

Purpose The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient.

Compression and amplification algorithms in hearing aids impair the selectivity of neural responses to speech

In quiet environments, hearing aids improve the perception of low-intensity sounds. However, for high-intensity sounds in background noise, the aids often fail to provide a benefit to the wearer. Here, by using large-scale single-neuron recordings from hearing-impaired gerbils — an established animal model of human hearing — we show that hearing aids restore the sensitivity of neural responses to speech, but not their selectivity. Rather than reflecting a deficit in supra-threshold auditory processing, the low selectivity is a consequence of hearing-aid compression (which decreases the spectral and temporal contrasts of incoming sound) and of amplification (which distorts neural responses, regardless of whether hearing is impaired). Processing strategies that avoid the trade-off between neural sensitivity and selectivity should improve the performance of hearing aids.

Effect of hearing aids on attention, memory, and auditory evoked potentials: A pragmatic, single-blinded, and randomised pilot clinical trial

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of hearing aids and their technology levels (premium and basic) on attention, memory, brain response, and self-perceived benefit amongst individuals who were naïve to sound amplification.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A pragmatic, single-blinded, and randomised pilot clinical trial in three-parallel arms according to hearing aids technology: (a) premium; (b) basic; and (c) no amplification hearing devices. Participants were ≥60 years old with mild-to-moderate sensorineural symmetric hearing loss and naïve to sound amplification. We tested attention and memory skills, as well as brain response and self-perceived benefit before and after 12 weeks of using the hearing devices. The primary outcome was any improvement in the tests we performed.

RESULTS

The participants who missed the follow-up (n = 2) were excluded from our final analysis. We ended up with 22 patients (A = 8, B = 6, and C = 8) who were 80.4 (±6.1) years old, predominantly female (63.63%), and poorly educated (3.8 ± 1.6 years). After the intervention, we observed differences in attention and memory scores (reverse counting, P < .01, 95% CI 2.2; 11.63; digit sequence repetition, P = .03, 95% CI -1.9; -0.05; delayed recall, P = .03, 95% CI -1.2; -0.05; recognition, P < .01, 95% CI -2.6; -0.45; and visual memory, P < .01, 95% CI -0.9; -0.15), but only reverse counting (A vs C, P < .01,95% CI 5.9; 20.55) and recognition (B vs C, P < .01, 95% CI -6.1; -0.88) were observed in pairwise comparisons. The difference in N1 wave latency (/g/ sound, P = .01,95% CI 2.1; 18.59) could not be confirmed in pairwise comparison. The self-perceived benefit questionnaire revealed no difference between groups A and B; the groups A and C differed in benefit (P < .01, 95% CI -2.2; -0.76), satisfaction (P = .02,95% CI -2.0;-0.21), residual participation restrictions (P = .01, 95% CI -2.9; -0.38), and quality of life (P = .03, 95% CI -1.4; -0.08); the groups B and C differed in benefit (P < .001, 95% CI -2.3; -0.96), and satisfaction (P = .01,95% CI -2.1; -0.29).

CONCLUSION

In this study, premium and basic hearing aids impacted attention, memory, brain response, and self-perceived benefit similarly amongst individuals who were naïve to sound amplification after 12 weeks of using the hearing devices.

Social representation of hearing aids among people with hearing loss: an exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to examine the social representation (SR) of hearing aids in people with hearing loss (PHL) in India, the Republic of Korea (ROK), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (US).

DESIGN

The study used a cross-sectional survey design. The data collected by using a free association task were analysed qualitatively (i.e. content analysis) and quantitatively (i.e. chi-square analysis, similarities analysis, prototypical analysis).

STUDY SAMPLE

424 participants with hearing loss.

RESULTS

The most commonly reported categories across all countries were "beneficial," "cost and time," and "appearance and design." Approximately 50% of the associations reported were negative. There were variations in terms of the categories that were predominant in the SR of each country. "Others actions and attitude" category was predominantly reported by PHL in India. "Disturbance" and "dissatisfaction" of hearing aids and the "repairs and maintenance of hearing aids" categories were mainly reported from the ROK and the US, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results highlight the main aspects that PHL report spontaneously when they think about hearing aids. The findings will help to further inform public health campaigns and will contribute to develop culturally appropriate media materials regarding hearing aids.

The HEAR-VA Pilot Study: Hearing Assistance Provided to Older Adults in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Poor communication is a barrier to care for people with hearing loss. We assessed the feasibility and potential benefit of providing a simple hearing assistance device during an emergency department (ED) visit, for people who reported difficulty hearing.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled pilot study.

SETTING

The ED of New York Harbor Manhattan Veterans Administration Medical Center.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and thirty-three Veterans aged 60 and older, presenting to the ED, likely to be discharged to home, who either (1) said that they had difficulty hearing, or (2) scored 10 or greater (range 0-40) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Survey (HHI-S).

INTERVENTION

Subjects were randomized (1:1), and intervention subjects received a personal amplifier (PA; Williams Sound Pocketalker 2.0) for use during their ED visit.

MEASUREMENTS

Three survey instruments: (1) six-item Hearing and Understanding Questionnaire (HUQ); (2) three-item Care Transitions Measure; and (3) three-item Patient Understanding of Discharge Information. Post-ED visit phone calls to assess ED returns.

RESULTS

Of the 133 subjects, 98.3% were male; mean age was 76.4 years (standard deviation (SD) = 9.2). Mean HHI-S score was 19.2 (SD = 8.3). Across all HUQ items, intervention subjects reported better in-ED experience than controls. Seventy-five percent of intervention subjects agreed or strongly agreed that ability to understand what was said was without effort versus 56% for controls. Seventy-five percent of intervention subjects versus 36% of controls said clinicians provided them with an explanation about presenting problems. Three percent of intervention subjects had an ED revisit within 3 days compared with 9.0% controls.

CONCLUSION

Veterans with hearing difficulties reported improved in-ED experiences with use of PAs, and were less likely to return to the ED within 3 days. PAs may be an important adjunct to older patient ED care but require validation in a larger more definitive randomized controlled trial.

A Comparison of Environment Classification Among Premium Hearing Instruments

Hearing aids classify acoustic environments into multiple, generic classes for the purposes of guiding signal processing. Information about environmental classification is made available to the clinician for fitting, counseling, and troubleshooting purposes. The goal of this study was to better inform scientists and clinicians about the nature of that information by comparing the classification schemes among five premium hearing instruments in a wide range of acoustic scenes including those that vary in signal-to-noise ratio and overall level (dB SPL). Twenty-eight acoustic scenes representing various prototypical environments were presented to five premium devices mounted on an acoustic manikin. Classification measures were recorded from the brand-specific fitting software then recategorized to generic labels to conceal the device company, including (a) Speech in Quiet, (b) Speech in Noise, (c) Noise, and (d) Music. Twelve normal-hearing listeners also classified each scene. The results revealed a variety of similarities and differences among the five devices and the human subjects. Where some devices were highly dependent on input overall level, others were influenced markedly by signal-to-noise ratio. Differences between human and hearing aid classification were evident for several speech and music scenes. Environmental classification is the heart of the signal processing strategy for any given device, providing key input to subsequent decision-making. Comprehensive assessment of environmental classification is essential when considering the cost of signal processing errors, the potential impact for typical wearers, and the information that is available for use by clinicians. The magnitude of differences among devices is remarkable and to be noted.

Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports.

RESEARCH DESIGN

An observational study.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP.

RESULTS

For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029-0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28-0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the laboratory efficacy and real-world effectiveness of advanced directional microphones (DM) and digital noise reduction (NR) algorithms (i.e., premium DM/NR features) relative to basic-level DM/NR features of contemporary hearing aids (HAs). The study also examined the effect of premium HAs relative to basic HAs and the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features.

DESIGN

Fifty-four older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed a single-blinded crossover trial. Two HA models, one a less-expensive, basic-level device (basic HA) and the other a more-expensive, advanced-level device (premium HA), were used. The DM/NR features of the basic HAs (i.e., basic features) were adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with fewer channels. In contrast, the DM/NR features of the premium HAs (i.e., premium features) included adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with more channels, bilateral beamformers, speech-seeking DMs, pinna-simulation directivity, reverberation reduction, impulse NR, wind NR, and spatial NR. The trial consisted of four conditions, which were factorial combinations of HA model (premium versus basic) and DM/NR feature status (on versus off). To blind participants regarding the HA technology, no technology details were disclosed and minimal training on how to use the features was provided. In each condition, participants wore bilateral HAs for 5 weeks. Outcomes regarding speech understanding, listening effort, sound quality, localization, and HA satisfaction were measured using laboratory tests, retrospective self-reports (i.e., standardized questionnaires), and in-situ self-reports (i.e., self-reports completed in the real world in real time). A smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment system was used to collect in-situ self-reports.

RESULTS

Laboratory efficacy data generally supported the benefit of premium DM/NR features relative to basic DM/NR, premium HAs relative to basic HAs, and DM/NR features relative to no DM/NR in improving speech understanding and localization performance. Laboratory data also indicated that DM/NR features could improve listening effort and sound quality compared with no features for both basic- and premium-level HAs. For real-world effectiveness, in-situ self-reports first indicated that noisy or very noisy situations did not occur very often in participants' daily lives (10.9% of the time). Although both retrospective and in-situ self-reports indicated that participants were more satisfied with HAs equipped with DM/NR features than without, there was no strong evidence to support the benefit of premium DM/NR features and premium HAs over basic DM/NR features and basic HAs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although premium DM/NR features and premium HAs outperformed their basic-level counterparts in well-controlled laboratory test conditions, the benefits were not observed in the real world. In contrast, the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features was robust both in the laboratory and in the real world. Therefore, the present study suggests that although both premium and basic DM/NR technologies evaluated in the study have the potential to improve HA outcomes, older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are unlikely to perceive the additional benefits provided by the premium DM/NR features in their daily lives. Limitations concerning the study's generalizability (e.g., participant's lifestyle) are discussed.

Self-assessment of daily hearing function for implant recipients: A comparison of mean total scores for the Speech Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49) with the SSQ12

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship and agreement between mean total scores for the Speech Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49) and the shorter SSQ12 to measure daily hearing function for a large group of auditory implant recipients.

METHODS

Prospective, longitudinal self-assessment by 1013 implant recipients using the SSQ49 at preimplant and at annual post-implant intervals (one, two and three-years) via an international registry. Mean total scores were calculated for the SSQ49 and the extracted SSQ12 responses. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman agreement were examined between the SSQ49, SSQ12 and transformed SSQ12 versions. Longitudinal mixed-effects models were used to compare changes over time.

RESULTS

Very high correlation was shown between mean total scores for all versions while perfect agreement was not reached. Clinically acceptable agreement (<1.0 unit) between all versions was obtained with the transformed SSQ12 being least biased. All versions showed statistically significant improvement at one-year post-implant (>2.2 units; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All scale-versions showed comparable sensitivity to changes in self-reported hearing function over time. TheSSQ12 may be considered as a potential time-efficient self-assessment of hearing function for implant recipients in routine practice. Further research may involve independent repeated administration of each scale version.

An Application of the Medical Research Council's Guidelines for Evaluating Complex Interventions: A Usability Study Assessing Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults With Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to provide an example of the Medical Research Council's guidelines for evaluating complex health care interventions in the context of smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss.

METHOD

Twenty existing hearing aid users trialed 1 of the following smartphone-connected listening devices: made-for-smartphone hearing aids, a personal sound amplification product, and a smartphone "hearing aid" application used with either wireless or wired earphones. Following 2 weeks of use in their everyday lives, participants completed self-report outcome measures.

RESULTS

Relative to conventional hearing aids, self-reported use, benefit, and satisfaction were higher, and residual disability was lower for made-for-smartphone hearing aids. The converse was found for the other smartphone-connected listening devices trialed. Similarly, overall usability was judged to be "above average" for the made-for-smartphone hearing aids, but "below average" for the remaining devices.

CONCLUSIONS

This developmental work, guided by the Medical Research Council's framework, lays the foundation for feasibility and pilot studies, leading to high-quality research assessing the effectiveness of smartphone-connected listening devices. This future evidence is necessary to guide health care commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults living with hearing loss.

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life III: Localization

OBJECTIVE

Compared to basic-feature hearing aids, premium-feature hearing aids have more advanced technologies and sophisticated features. The objective of this study was to explore the difference between premium-feature and basic-feature hearing aids in horizontal sound localization in both laboratory and daily life environments. We hypothesized that premium-feature hearing aids would yield better localization performance than basic-feature hearing aids.

DESIGN

Exemplars of premium-feature and basic-feature hearing aids from two major manufacturers were evaluated. Forty-five older adults (mean age 70.3 years) with essentially symmetrical mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss were bilaterally fitted with each of the four pairs of hearing aids. Each pair of hearing aids was worn during a 4-week field trial and then evaluated using laboratory localization tests and a standardized questionnaire. Laboratory localization tests were conducted in a sound-treated room with a 360°, 24-loudspeaker array. Test stimuli were high frequency and low frequency filtered short sentences. The localization test in quiet was designed to assess the accuracy of front/back localization, while the localization test in noise was designed to assess the accuracy of locating sound sources throughout a 360° azimuth in the horizontal plane.

RESULTS

Laboratory data showed that unaided localization was not significantly different from aided localization when all hearing aids were combined. Questionnaire data showed that aided localization was significantly better than unaided localization in everyday situations. Regarding the difference between premium-feature and basic-feature hearing aids, laboratory data showed that, overall, the premium-feature hearing aids yielded more accurate localization than the basic-feature hearing aids when high-frequency stimuli were used, and the listening environment was quiet. Otherwise, the premium-feature and basic-feature hearing aids yielded essentially the same performance in other laboratory tests and in daily life. The findings were consistent for both manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory tests for two of six major manufacturers showed that premium-feature hearing aids yielded better localization performance than basic-feature hearing aids in one out of four laboratory conditions. There was no difference between the two feature levels in self-reported everyday localization. Effectiveness research with different hearing aid technologies is necessary, and more research with other manufacturers' products is needed. Furthermore, these results confirm previous observations that research findings in laboratory conditions might not translate to everyday life.

Benefits from, Satisfaction with, and Self-Efficacy for Advanced Digital Hearing Aids in Users with Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Little evidence is available regarding outcomes of advanced digital technology (ADT) hearing aid wearers with mild sensorineural hearing loss (MSNHL). The purpose of this article is to report the characteristics of and outcomes for this population. A cross-sectional research design was employed with 56 participants from a private practice setting. The International Outcomes Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids (MARS-HA) were completed, scored, and compared with normative data. Results revealed that ADT aids were worn 10.5 hours/day, were mostly advanced to premium (55%), had an average cost per aid of $2,138 (SD = $840), and provided significant benefit (IOI-HA overall score: mean = 4.1; SD = 0.6) and satisfaction (SADL global score: mean = 5.4; SD = 0.8) to users who had good overall self-efficacy (MARS-HA composite score: mean = 81.7; SD = 12.8). Patients were most dissatisfied with and had the least self-efficacy for managing background noise and advanced handling of their devices. ADT hearing aid users with MSNHL achieved excellent outcomes, but ongoing follow-up and counseling from hearing health care providers may be important for successful management of background noise and mastery of advanced handling skills.

Health-Related Quality of Life Among Young Children With Cochlear Implants and Developmental Disabilities

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

We developed a framework for objectively comparing hearing aids, independent of brand, type, or product family. This was done using a large dataset of commercially available hearing aids. To achieve this, we investigated which hearing aid features are suitable for comparison, and are also relevant for the rehabilitation of hearing impairment. To compare hearing aids objectively, we distinguished populations of hearing aids based on a set of key hearing aid features. Finally, we describe these hearing aid subpopulations so that these could potentially be used as a supporting tool for the selection of an appropriate hearing aid.

Design:

In this study, we used technical (meta-)data from 3911 hearing aids (available on the Dutch market in March 2018). The dataset contained about 50 of the most important characteristics of a hearing aid. After cleaning and handling the data via a well-defined knowledge discovery in database procedure, a total 3083 hearing aids were included. Subsequently, a set of well-defined key hearing aid features were used as input for further analysis. The data were split into an in-the-ear style hearing aid subset and a behind-the-ear style subset, for separate analyses. The knowledge discovery in databases procedure was also used as an objective guiding tool for applying an exploratory cluster analysis to expose subpopulations of hearing aids within the dataset. The latter was done using Latent Class Tree Analysis, which is an extension to the better-known Latent Class Analysis clustering method: with the important addition of a hierarchical structure.

Results:

A total of 10 hearing aid features were identified as relevant for audiological rehabilitation: compression, sound processing, noise reduction (NR), expansion, wind NR, impulse (noise) reduction, active feedback management, directionality, NR environments, and ear-to-ear communication. These features had the greatest impact on results yielded by the Latent Class Tree cluster analysis. At the first level in the hierarchical cluster model, the two subpopulations of hearing aids could be divided into 3 main branches, mainly distinguishable by the overall availability or technology level of hearing aid features. Higher-level results of the cluster analysis yielded a set of mutually exclusive hearing aid populations, called modalities. In total, nine behind-the-ear and seven in-the-ear modalities were found. These modalities were characterized by particular profiles of (complex) interplay between the selected key features. A technical comparison of features (e.g., implementation) is beyond the scope of this research.

Conclusions:

Combining a large dataset of hearing aids with a probabilistic hierarchical clustering method enables analysis of hearing aid characteristics which extends beyond product families and manufacturers. Furthermore, this study found that the resulting hearing aid modalities can be thought of as a generic alternative to the manufacturer-dependent proprietary “concepts,” and could potentially aid the selection of an appropriate hearing aid for technical rehabilitation. This study is in line with a growing need for justification of hearing aid selection and the increasing demand for evidence-based practice.

Hearing aids: indications, technology, adaptation, and quality control

Hearing loss can be caused by a number of different pathological conditions. Some of them can be successfully treated, mainly by surgery, depending on the individual's disease process. However, the treatment of chronic sensorineural hearing loss with damaged cochlear structures usually needs hearing rehabilitation by means of technical amplification. During the last two decades tremendous improvements in hearing aid technology led to a higher quality of the hearing rehabilitation process. For example, due to sophisticated signal processing acoustic feedback could be reduced and hence open fitting options are available even for more subjects with higher degrees of hearing loss. In particular for high-frequency hearing loss, the use of open fitting is an option. Both the users' acceptance and the perceived sound quality were significantly increased by open fittings. However, we are still faced with a low level of readiness in many hearing impaired subjects to accept acoustic amplification. Since ENT specialists play a key-role in hearing aid provision, they should promote early hearing aid rehabilitation and include this in the counselling even in subjects with mild and moderate hearing loss. Recent investigations demonstrated the benefit of early hearing aid use in this group of patients since this may help to reduce subsequent damages as auditory deprivation, social isolation, development of dementia, and cognitive decline. For subjects with tinnitus, hearing aids may also support masking by environmental sounds and enhance cortical inhibition. The present paper describes the latest developments of hearing aid technology and the current state of the art for amplification modalities. Implications for both hearing aid indication and provision are discussed.

The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to determine efficacy of hearing aids in older adults using audiology best practices, to evaluate the efficacy of an alternative over-the-counter (OTC) intervention, and to examine the influence of purchase price on outcomes for both service-delivery models.

DESIGN

The design of this study was a single-site, prospective, double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial with three parallel branches: (a) audiology best practices (AB), (b) consumer decides OTC model (CD), and (c) placebo devices (P). Outcome measures were obtained after a typical 6-week trial period with follow-up 4-week AB-based trial for those initially assigned to CD and P groups.

SETTING

Older adults from the general community were recruited via newspaper and community flyers to participate at a university research clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adults, ages 55-79 years, with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. There were 188 eligible participants: 163 enrolled as a volunteer sample, and 154 completed the intervention.

INTERVENTION(S)

All participants received the same high-end digital mini-behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted bilaterally. AB and P groups received best-practice services from audiologists; differing mainly in use of appropriate (AB) or placebo (P) hearing aid settings. CD participants self-selected their own pre-programmed hearing aids via an OTC model.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was a 66-item self-report, Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (Cox & Gilmore, 1990). Secondary outcome measure was the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) benefit. Additional measures of hearing-aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage were also obtained.

RESULTS

Per-protocol analyses were performed. AB service-delivery model was found to be efficacious for most of the outcome measures, with moderate or large effect sizes (Cohen's d). CD service-delivery model was efficacious, with similar effect sizes. However, CD group had a significantly (p < .05) lower satisfaction and percentage (CD: 55%; AB: 81%; P: 36%) likely to purchase hearing aids after the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing aids are efficacious in older adults for both AB and CD service-delivery models. CD model of OTC service delivery yielded only slightly poorer outcomes than the AB model. Efficacious OTC models may increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for millions of older adults. Purchase price had no effect on outcomes, but a high percentage of those who rejected hearing aids paid the typical price (85%).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01788432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01788423.

Lack of ear care knowledge in nursing homes

Background

Rising life expectancy means an increase in the number of elderly people with hearing loss in the population. Many elderly people live in nursing homes, with varying care needs. A substantial proportion of these people will need help with their hearing aids and other hearing devices.

Objective

The objective of the study has been to assess the knowledge, experience, skills, competence, and need for information of staff at nursing homes in relation to residents’ hearing loss and hearing aids.

Materials and methods

One hundred and ninety-five employees at seven nursing homes participated in the study. The main approach was a descriptive study, using questionnaires.

Results

The main findings are that 73% of informants found that many residents need help with their hearing aids. Only one-tenth report that they know enough about the residents’ hearing aids. Almost four out of five informants find that the residents become socially isolated as a result of hearing loss. Seventy-eight percent agree to some extent that more residents would benefit from hearing aids.

Conclusion

Staff at nursing homes have insufficient knowledge about hearing loss and hearing aids. Increased focus on the elderly with hearing impairment in nursing homes is needed. Contact between nursing homes and audiological specialists should be improved to best followup hearing loss and hearing aids.

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort

OBJECTIVES

Modern hearing aid (HA) devices include a collection of acoustic signal-processing features designed to improve listening outcomes in a variety of daily auditory environments. Manufacturers market these features at successive levels of technological sophistication. The features included in costlier premium hearing devices are designed to result in further improvements to daily listening outcomes compared with the features included in basic hearing devices. However, independent research has not substantiated such improvements. This research was designed to explore differences in speech-understanding and listening-effort outcomes for older adults using premium-feature and basic-feature HAs in their daily lives.

DESIGN

For this participant-blinded, repeated, crossover trial 45 older adults (mean age 70.3 years) with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss wore each of four pairs of bilaterally fitted HAs for 1 month. HAs were premium- and basic-feature devices from two major brands. After each 1-month trial, participants' speech-understanding and listening-effort outcomes were evaluated in the laboratory and in daily life.

RESULTS

Three types of speech-understanding and listening-effort data were collected: measures of laboratory performance, responses to standardized self-report questionnaires, and participant diary entries about daily communication. The only statistically significant superiority for the premium-feature HAs occurred for listening effort in the loud laboratory condition and was demonstrated for only one of the tested brands.

CONCLUSIONS

The predominant complaint of older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing impairment is difficulty understanding speech in various settings. The combined results of all the outcome measures used in this research suggest that, when fitted using scientifically based practices, both premium- and basic-feature HAs are capable of providing considerable, but essentially equivalent, improvements to speech understanding and listening effort in daily life for this population. For HA providers to make evidence-based recommendations to their clientele with hearing impairment it is essential that further independent research investigates the relative benefit/deficit of different levels of hearing technology across brands and manufacturers in these and other real-world listening domains.