Longitudinal Changes in Hearing Aid Use and Hearing Aid Management Challenges in Infants

What factors are associated with infant hearing aid use? A parent survey using the Theoretical Domains Framework

OBJECTIVE

Hearing aid use is lowest in 0-3-year-olds with hearing loss, placing spoken language development at risk. Existing interventions lack effectiveness and are typically not based on a theoretically driven, comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing infant hearing aid use. The present study is the first to address this gap in understanding.

DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE

A 55-item online survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was completed by 56 parents of 0-3-year-old hearing aid users.

RESULTS

Participants reported a wide range of barriers across TDF domains, which were associated with parent-reported hearing aid use and more pronounced in parents of lower hearing aid users. The most strongly reported domains across participants were "emotion" (e.g. feelings of worry when using hearing aids), "beliefs about capabilities" (e.g. belief in ability to use hearing aids consistently), and "environmental context and resources" (e.g. child removing hearing aids).

CONCLUSIONS

Parents report a wider range of barriers to infant hearing aid use than existing investigations suggest and current interventions address. Interventions would benefit from: (i) targeting a wider range of TDF domains in their design; and (ii) implementing the present TDF survey to identify and target family-specific barriers to infant hearing aid use.

Pediatric Hearing Aid Daily Wear Time Is Significantly Impacted by Clinician-Family Language Discordance

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential contribution of limited English proficiency on daily hearing aid wear time for children with hearing loss.

METHOD

A retrospective chart review was completed to evaluate hearing aid wear time based on data logging information available at the time of a follow-up visit following an initial hearing aid fitting. Children were included in the study if they had permanent bilateral hearing loss and were less than 60 months of age at the time of their first follow-up visit. Wear time was compared between children who attended an interpreter-mediated appointment and those who did not have an interpreter present. The presence of an interpreter at the appointment was the study indicator that the family had limited English proficiency.

RESULTS

Children from families with limited English proficiency exhibited significantly shorter daily wear time (M = 1.3 hr) than their peers whose families were English-proficient speakers, thus, having a shared language with their audiologists (M = 5.2 hr).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study suggest that family-clinician language discordance might put children at greater risk of shorter hearing aid wear time than children whose caregivers share a common language with their child's audiologist. There can be many linguistic, cultural, and educational factors that contribute to hearing aid wear time in children whose families have limited English proficiency as well as different approaches to improving that wear time. Efforts should ensure that hearing and hearing aid-related information is accessible to all families, especially those with clinician-family language discordance. Such efforts can include, among others, training that improves clinicians' cultural and linguistic responsiveness to the diverse families they serve.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Support Principles

This article is the sixth in a series of eight articles that comprise a special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. The Support Principles article is the second of three articles that describe the 10 Principles of FCEI-DHH, preceded by the Foundation Principles, and followed by the Structure Principles, all in this special issue. The Support Principles are composed of four Principles (Principles 3, 4, 5, and 6) that highlight (a) the importance of a variety of supports for families raising children who are DHH; (b) the need to attend to and ensure the well-being of all children who are DHH; (c) the necessity of building the language and communication abilities of children who are DHH and their family members; and (d) the importance of considering the family's strengths, needs, and values in decision-making.

Aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Infants With Frequency-Specific Synthetic Speech Stimuli: Sensitivity, Repeatability, and Feasibility

OBJECTIVES

The cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) test is a candidate for supplementing clinical practice for infant hearing aid users and others who are not developmentally ready for behavioral testing. Sensitivity of the test for given sensation levels (SLs) has been reported to some degree, but further data are needed from large numbers of infants within the target age range, including repeat data where CAEPs were not detected initially. This study aims to assess sensitivity, repeatability, acceptability, and feasibility of CAEPs as a clinical measure of aided audibility in infants.

DESIGN

One hundred and three infant hearing aid users were recruited from 53 pediatric audiology centers across the UK. Infants underwent aided CAEP testing at age 3 to 7 months to a mid-frequency (MF) and (mid-)high-frequency (HF) synthetic speech stimulus. CAEP testing was repeated within 7 days. When developmentally ready (aged 7-21 months), the infants underwent aided behavioral hearing testing using the same stimuli, to estimate the decibel (dB) SL (i.e., level above threshold) of those stimuli when presented at the CAEP test sessions. Percentage of CAEP detections for different dB SLs are reported using an objective detection method (Hotellings T 2 ). Acceptability was assessed using caregiver interviews and a questionnaire, and feasibility by recording test duration and completion rate.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity for a single CAEP test when the stimuli were ≥0 dB SL (i.e., audible) was 70% for the MF stimulus and 54% for the HF stimulus. After repeat testing, this increased to 84% and 72%, respectively. For SL >10 dB, the respective MF and HF test sensitivities were 80% and 60% for a single test, increasing to 94% and 79% for the two tests combined. Clinical feasibility was demonstrated by an excellent >99% completion rate, and acceptable median test duration of 24 minutes, including preparation time. Caregivers reported overall positive experiences of the test.

CONCLUSIONS

By addressing the clinical need to provide data in the target age group at different SLs, we have demonstrated that aided CAEP testing can supplement existing clinical practice when infants with hearing loss are not developmentally ready for traditional behavioral assessment. Repeat testing is valuable to increase test sensitivity. For clinical application, it is important to be aware of CAEP response variability in this age group.

Characterisation of the treatment provided for children with unilateral hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Children with permanent unilateral hearing loss (UHL) are an understudied population, with limited data to inform the guidelines on clinical management. There is a funding gap in healthcare provision for the children with UHL in the United Kingdom, where genetic screening, support services, and devices are not consistently provided or fully funded in all areas. They are a disparate population with regard to aetiology and their degree of hearing loss, and hence their device choice and use. Despite having one "good ear", some children with UHL can have similar outcomes, socially, behaviourally, and academically, to children with bilateral hearing loss, highlighting the importance of understanding this population. In this longitudinal cohort study, we aimed to characterise the management of the children with UHL and the gaps in the support services that are provided for the children in Nottingham, United Kingdom.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted collecting longitudinal data over 17 years (2002-2019) for 63 children with permanent congenital confirmed UHL in a large tertiary regional referral centre for hearing loss in Nottingham, United Kingdom. The cases of UHL include permanent congenital, conductive, mixed, or sensorineural hearing loss, and the degree of hearing loss ranges from mild to profound. The data were taken from their diagnostic auditory brainstem responses and their two most recent hearing assessments. Descriptors were recorded of the devices trialled and used and the diagnoses including aetiology of UHL, age of first fit, degree of hearing loss, when and which type of device was used, why a device was not used, the support services provided, concerns raised, and who raised them.

RESULTS

Most children (45/63; 71%) trialled a device, and the remaining 18 children had no device trial on record. Most children (20/45; 44%) trialled a bone-conduction device, followed by contralateral routing of signal aid (15/45; 33%) and conventional hearing aids (9/45; 20%). Most children (36/45; 80%) who had a device indicated that they wore their device "all day" or every day in school. Few children (8/45; 18%) reported that they wore their device rarely, and the reasons for this included bullying (3/8), feedback from the device (2/8), and discomfort from the device (2/8). Only one child reported that the device was not helping with their hearing. The age that the children were first fitted with their hearing device varied a median of 2.5 years for hearing aids and bone-conduction devices and 7 years for a contralateral routing of signal aid. The length of time that the children had the device also varied widely (median of 26 months, range 3-135 months); the children had their bone-conduction hearing aid for the longest period of time (median of 32.5 months). There was a significant trend where more recent device fittings were happening for children at a younger age. Fifty-one children were referred by the paediatric audiologist to a support service, 72.5% (37/51) were subsequently followed up by the referred service with no issue, whilst the remaining 27.5% (14/51) encountered an issue leading to an unsuccessful provision of support. Overall, most children (65%, 41/63) had no reported concerns, and 28.5% (18/63) of the children went on to have a documented concern at some point during their audiological care: five with hearing aid difficulties, five with speech issues, four with no improvement in hearing, three facing self-image or bullying issues, and one case of a child struggling to interact socially with friends. Three of these children had not trialled a device. We documented every concern reported from the parents, clinicians, teachers of the deaf, and from the children themselves. Where concerns were raised, more than half (58.6%, 10/18) were by schools and teachers, the remaining four concerns were raised by the family, and further four concerns were raised by the children themselves.

CONCLUSION

To discover what management will most benefit which children with permanent UHL, we first must characterise their treatment, their concerns, and the support services available for them. Despite the children with UHL being a highly disparate population-in terms of their aetiology, their device use, the degree of hearing loss, and the age at which they trial a device-the majority report they use their device mostly in school. In lieu of available data and in consideration of the devices that are available to them, it could be useful to support families and clinicians in understanding the devices which are most used and where they are used. Considering the reasons for cessation of regular device use counselling and support services would be vital to support the children with UHL.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Use in Children

Objective

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors affecting hearing aid use in children and investigate how these factors affected their subjective auditory performance.

Methods

The study was carried out with 34 children aged three to six years who had mild or moderate sensorineural hearing loss and had used a bilateral hearing aid for at least six months. The daily hearing aid usage times of children were collected with the help of data logging software. Parent-child interactions were assessed with the Maternal Behavior Rating Scale (MBRS) and Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS) scores. To assess the parents' levels of knowledge about hearing devices, the Hearing Aid Awareness Question Form for Parents, which was prepared by the researchers, was used. Finally, to evaluate the subjective hearing performance of the children, the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) survey was implemented.

Results

Strong and significant correlations were found between the MBRS and CBRS scores, the results obtained from some questions in the Hearing Aid Awareness Question Form for Parents, the overall PEACH score, the QUIET subscale score, and the NOISE subscale score (p<0.001). According to the multivariate linear regression analyses, it was observed that the use of the pediatric clip hearing aids holder (question 17) had a significant effect in decreasing both the overall PEACH score (β=-3.07, p=0.008) and the PEACH-NOISE subscale score (β=-1.88, p=0.012). A unit increase in the score given to question 24 of the Hearing Aid Awareness Question Form for Parents (i.e., using the hearing aids longer) caused a 2.35-fold increase in the PEACH-NOISE subscale score, a 1.74-fold increase in the PEACH-QUIET subscale score, and a 4.06-fold increase in the overall PEACH score.

Conclusion

Parent-child interaction and parents' knowledge about hearing aid use are important factors affecting hearing aid use in children. These factors also affect the children's subjective auditory performance. Parents should be given detailed information about hearing aid use and be more sensitive and responsive in their interactions with their children.

Descriptions of Hearing Loss Severity Differentially Influence Parental Concern about the Impact of Childhood Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to measure how parent concern about childhood hearing loss varies under different description conditions: classification-based, audibility-based, and simulation-based descriptions.

METHOD

We randomly allocated study participants (n = 143) to complete an online survey about expected child difficulties with listening situations with hearing loss. Our participants were parents of children with typical hearing in the 0- to 12-month age range. Participants were exposed to one type of description (classification-based, audibility-based, or simulation-based) and one level of hearing loss (slight, mild, and moderate or their audibility and simulation equivalents), producing nine total groups. Participants rated the level of expected difficulty their child would experience performing age-appropriate listening tasks with the given hearing loss. They also selected what they perceived as the most appropriate intervention from a list of increasingly intense options.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed that audibility-based descriptions elicited significantly higher levels of parent concerns about hearing loss than classification-based strategies, but that simulation-based descriptions elicited the highest levels of concern. Those assigned to simulation-based and audibility-based groups also judged relatively more intense intervention options as appropriate compared to those assigned to classification-based groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study expands our knowledge base about descriptive factors that impact levels of parent concern about hearing loss after diagnosis. This has potentially cascading effects on later intervention actions such as fitting hearing technology. It also provides a foundation for developing and testing clinical applications of audibility-based counseling strategies.

Hearing aid use in 11-year-old children with mild bilateral hearing loss: Associations between parent and child ratings and datalogging

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the hearing aid use in older school-aged children with mild bilateral hearing loss. More specifically, it investigated children's and parents' estimation of use in comparison to datalogging as well as explored the situations children used their hearing aids.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixteen children with mild bilateral hearing loss and their parents participated. Of those, 14 children used hearing aids. Children and parents completed a questionnaire on hours of hearing aid use and situations hearing aids were used. Datalogging of the hearing aids was recorded and compared to the outcome of the questionnaires.

RESULTS

Datalogging indicated average hearing aid use time was 6.6 h. Children significantly overestimated their use of their hearing aids while approximately half the parents overestimated their child's use. Children used their hearing aids most often at school and in the car.

CONCLUSION

Children with mild bilateral hearing loss overestimate the amount of time they are wearing their hearing aids. This may impact counselling and intervention on the use of hearing aids. Therefore, school-aged children should be included in the discussions around potentially increasing use of hearing aids.