Direct-to-Consumer Hearing Devices: Capabilities, Costs, and Cosmetics

Consumer Perspectives on Improving Hearing Aids: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Hearing aids play a pivotal role in mitigating the impact of hearing loss, yet their adoption and consistent usage remains suboptimal. Understanding the hearing aid needs of individuals with hearing loss is important to support uptake, use, and outcomes. The current study describes users' perspectives on how hearing aids can be improved.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, qualitative, content analysis design was used for an open-ended question from an online survey, exploring user perspectives on hearing aid improvements. Participants were adult hearing aid users in the United States, surveyed from the HearingTracker and Lexie Hearing user database.

RESULTS

A total of 628 participants (Mage = 66 years) were surveyed. The majority of participants used bilateral, behind-the-ear hearing aids that were obtained either through a hearing health care professional or online. Three domains, highlighting areas for hearing aid improvement, were identified. (a) The hearing aid features domain described user issues surrounding physical appearance and fit, general features, streaming, battery functionality, adjustments, smartphone applications, and hearing aid-related accessories. There was dissatisfaction with aesthetics and functionality, with a notable desire for improvements in physical appearance and fit (n = 161), and features to improve self-efficacy. (b) The sound quality domain described user issues surrounding sound perception and difficult situations. Participants highlighted unmet needs for clarity, especially in noisy environments (n = 143). (c) The service-delivery domain described user issues surrounding audiology services and general satisfaction, with criticisms centered on the high cost of hearing aids (n = 193) and the credibility of hearing health care professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing aid users appreciated current technological advances but expressed a need for improvements, to better align devices with their requirements. Key areas included physical aesthetics, user control over device adjustments, sound clarity, cost accessibility, and trust between the user and hearing health care professional. Future designs should focus on features enhancing user autonomy and self-efficacy.

Perceptions of older and younger adults who wear hearing aids

OBJECTIVE

To investigate older and younger adults' perceptions of older and younger adults who wear hearing aids.

DESIGN

Participants completed two Implicit Association Tests: One with images of older adults (OA-IAT) and one with images of younger adults (YA-IAT), either wearing or not wearing hearing aids. Participants also rated age, attractiveness, and intelligence of younger and older adults pictured with or without a hearing aid.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty older adults (M age = 70 years, SD = 4.38) and 30 younger adults (M age = 23 years, SD = 3.01) who reported not having hearing aids or a diagnosed hearing impairment.

RESULTS

For both IATs, older and younger participants responded faster and more accurately when images of individuals wearing hearing aids were paired with negative words in comparison to positive words. Photo ratings did not vary in relation to the presence or absence of hearing aids for either age group.

CONCLUSION

Although the photo rating tasks indicate neutral explicit attitudes towards individuals who wear hearing aids, our interpretation of the IAT results indicates that younger and older adults may hold negative implicit attitudes towards both older and younger hearing aid users.

Comparing criteria for deviation from hearing aid prescriptive targets in children

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a stricter criterion for paediatric hearing aid fitting for proximity of fit-to-target of <3 dB root-mean-square (RMS) error produces better audibility and outcomes compared to the current <5 dB criterion, and to examine the relationship between aided audibility and RMS error by degree of hearing loss.

DESIGN

We evaluated the influence of unaided hearing level on the relationship between RMS error and aided audibility. We assessed the effect of RMS error category (<3, 3-5, >5 dB) on aided audibility, speech recognition, expressive vocabulary, and morphosyntax.

STUDY SAMPLE

The study included 2314 hearing aid verification measurements from 307 children with hearing aids.

RESULTS

Children who met a <3 dB criterion had higher aided audibility than children who met no criterion (>5 dB error). Results showed no differences in speech recognition or vocabulary by error category, but children with <3 dB error demonstrated better morphosyntax than children with 3-5 and >5 dB RMS error.

CONCLUSIONS

Fittings that are close to prescriptive targets provide a more positive outcome for children with hearing aids. Using probe microphone measures to adjust hearing aids to within 3 dB may benefit language abilities in children.

Comparing Direct-to-Consumer Devices to Hearing Aids: Amplification Accuracy for Three Types of Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized regulations for over-the-counter hearing aids (OTC-HAs) on August 17, 2022. Little is known about the comparative performance of OTC-HAs and prescription HAs. This study compared amplification accuracy of prescription HAs and direct-to-consumer devices (DTCDs, including personal sound amplification products [PSAPs] and OTC-HAs).

METHOD

Eleven devices were programmed to meet prescriptive targets in an acoustic manikin for three degrees of hearing loss. Devices consisted of high- and low-end HAs, PSAPS, and OTC-HAs. Each was tested, and deviations from target measured with an HA analyzer at every combination of 10 frequencies and low-, average-, and high-level inputs. Accuracy was compared using a multilevel Poisson model with device-specific intercepts controlling for input level, frequency, and device type.

RESULTS

For mild-moderate hearing loss, deviations from targets were not statistically different between high- and low-end HAs, but PSAPs (5.50 dB, SE = 0.92 dB) and OTC-HAs (8.83 dB, SE = 1.10 dB) had larger differentials. For flat moderate hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, average differentials were larger for all device types at all input levels and frequencies (Low HA: 3.82 dB, SE = 1.10 dB; PSAP: 9.24 dB, SE = 1.22 dB; OTC-HA: 8.61 dB, SE = 1.19 dB). For mild sloping to severe hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, OTC-HAs (9.72 dB, SE = 1.20 dB) and PSAPs (7.34 dB, SE = 1.07 dB) had larger differentials and significant variability at the highest and lowest frequencies. Half (three) of the PSAPs and OTC-HAs met most targets within ±5 dB.

CONCLUSIONS

DTCDs were unable to meet prescriptive targets for severe types of hearing loss but could meet them for mild hearing loss. This study provides an examination of current hearing devices. More research is needed to determine whether meeting prescriptive targets provides any benefit in the outcomes and performance with DTCD devices.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing Hearing Aid Outcomes in Adults Using Over-the-Counter and Hearing Care Professional Service Delivery Models

PURPOSE

More affordable hearing aids are now available due to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid regulations. Although laboratory studies have validated many OTC hearing technologies, there are limited real-world benefit studies. This study compared hearing aid outcomes reported by clients from OTC and conventional hearing care professional (HCP) service delivery models.

METHOD

An ecological, cross-sectional survey design was employed. An online survey was sent to the Hearing Tracker user and OTC Lexie hearing aid user databases. Moreover, 656 hearing aid users completed the survey-406 through conventional HCP services (M _age = 66.7 ± 13.0 years) and 250 through the OTC model (M _age = 63.7 ± 12.2 years). Self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction were measured with the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids outcome tool.

RESULTS

No significant difference for overall hearing aid outcomes between HCP and OTC users was evident using regression analyses, controlling for age, gender, duration of hearing loss, duration before hearing aid purchase, self-reported hearing difficulty, and unilateral versus bilateral fitting. For the "daily use" domain, HCP clients reported significantly longer hours of daily use. For the "residual activity limitations" domain, OTC hearing aid users reported significantly less difficulty hearing in situations where they most wanted to hear better.

CONCLUSIONS

OTC hearing aid outcomes could complement and provide similar satisfaction and benefit to HCP models for adults. Service delivery aspects such as self-fitting, acclimatization programs, remote support, behavioral incentivization, and payment options should be investigated for their potential role in OTC hearing aid outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22134788.

Hearables as a gateway to hearing health care: A review

The market for hearing technology is evolving—with the emergence of hearables, it now extends beyond hearing aids and includes any ear-level devices with wireless connectivity (i.e., wireless earbuds). However, will this evolving marketplace bring forth opportunities or challenges to individuals’ hearing health care and the profession of audiology and otolaryngology? The debate has been ongoing. This study explores the wide spectrum of hearables available in the market and discusses the necessity of high-quality clinical evidence prior to the implementation of over-the-counter devices into clinical practice.

Is the outcome of fitting hearing aids to adults affected by whether an audiogram-based prescription formula is individually applied? A systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aims to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's audiogram-based prescription results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The methods of this review are reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. On 23 August 2020, eight different databases were systematically searched without any restrictions: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare and Academic Search Premier. To ensure that this review includes the most recent evidence, the searches will be repeated at the final write-up stage. The population of interest of this review will be adults with any degree or type of hearing loss. The studies should compare hearing aids programmed using an audiogram-based prescription (and verified in the real ear) with those not programmed on the basis of the individual's audiogram. The primary outcome of interest is consumers' listening preferences. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life, self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility of words and sentences in quiet and noisy situations, sound quality ratings and adverse events are the secondary outcomes of interest. Both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The quality of each individual study and the overall evidence will be assessed using Downs and Black's checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies, so no ethical approval is required. The review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020197232.

Minimal and Mild Hearing Loss in Children: Association with Auditory Perception, Cognition, and Communication Problems

OBJECTIVES

"Minimal" and "mild" hearing loss are the most common but least understood forms of hearing loss in children. Children with better ear hearing level as low as 30 dB HL have a global language impairment and, according to the World Health Organization, a "disabling level of hearing loss." We examined in a population of 6- to 11-year-olds how hearing level ≤40.0 dB HL (1 and 4 kHz pure-tone average, PTA, threshold) is related to auditory perception, cognition, and communication.

DESIGN

School children (n = 1638) were recruited in 4 centers across the United Kingdom. They completed a battery of hearing (audiometry, filter width, temporal envelope, speech-in-noise) and cognitive (IQ, attention, verbal memory, receptive language, reading) tests. Caregivers assessed their children's communication and listening skills. Children included in this study (702 male; 752 female) had 4 reliable tone thresholds (1, 4 kHz each ear), and no caregiver reported medical or intellectual disorder. Normal-hearing children (n = 1124, 77.1%) had all 4 thresholds and PTA <15 dB HL. Children with ≥15 dB HL for at least 1 threshold, and PTA <20 dB (n = 245, 16.8%) had minimal hearing loss. Children with 20 ≤PTA <40 dB HL (n = 88, 6.0%) had mild hearing loss. Interaural asymmetric hearing loss ( left PTA - right PTA ≥10 dB) was found in 28.9% of those with minimal and 39.8% of those with mild hearing loss.

RESULTS

Speech perception in noise, indexed by vowel-consonant-vowel pseudoword repetition in speech-modulated noise, was impaired in children with minimal and mild hearing loss, relative to normal-hearing children. Effect size was largest (d = 0.63) in asymmetric mild hearing loss and smallest (d = 0.21) in symmetric minimal hearing loss. Spectral (filter width) and temporal (backward masking) perceptions were impaired in children with both forms of hearing loss, but suprathreshold perception generally related only weakly to PTA. Speech-in-noise (nonsense syllables) and language (pseudoword repetition) were also impaired in both forms of hearing loss and correlated more strongly with PTA. Children with mild hearing loss were additionally impaired in working memory (digit span) and reading, and generally performed more poorly than those with minimal loss. Asymmetric hearing loss produced as much impairment overall on both auditory and cognitive tasks as symmetric hearing loss. Nonverbal IQ, attention, and caregiver-rated listening and communication were not significantly impaired in children with hearing loss. Modeling suggested that 15 dB HL is objectively an appropriate lower audibility limit for diagnosis of hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing loss between 15 and 30 dB PTA is, at ~20%, much more prevalent in 6- to 11-year-old children than most current estimates. Key aspects of auditory and cognitive skills are impaired in both symmetric and asymmetric minimal and mild hearing loss. Hearing loss <30 dB HL is most closely related to speech perception in noise, and to cognitive abilities underpinning language and reading. The results suggest wider use of speech-in-noise measures to diagnose and assess management of hearing loss and reduction of the clinical hearing loss threshold for children to 15 dB HL.

Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review, the first on this topic, aimed to investigate if probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improves outcomes in adults. The review was preregistered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. After assessing more than 1,420 records from seven databases, six experimental studies (published between 2012 and 2019) met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome of interest (hearing-specific, health-related quality of life) was not reported in any study. There were moderate and statistically significant positive effects of probe-tube real-ear measurement (REM), compared with the manufacturer’s initial fit, on speech intelligibility in quiet settings (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.59) and user’s final preference (proportion difference: 52.2%). There were small but statistically significant positive effects of REM on self-reported listening abilities (SMD: 0.22) and speech intelligibility in noise (SMD: 0.15). The quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from high to very low. The findings show that REMs improve outcomes statistically, but this is based on a small number of studies and a limited number of participants. It is currently unclear if the benefits are of material importance because minimum clinically important differences have not been established for most of the outcomes. Ultimately, there needs to be a cost-effectiveness analysis to show that statistically significant benefits, which exceed the minimum clinically important difference, are worth the cost involved.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices

In this article, we review the current literature assessing the application and benefits of connected hearing technologies, as well as their potential to improve accessibility to and affordability of hearing healthcare. Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of hearing devices that connect wirelessly to smartphone technologies via Bluetooth. These devices include (1) smartphone-connected hearing aids that must be obtained from a licensed audiologist or hearing aid dispenser; (2) direct-to-consumer devices, such as personal sound amplification products; and (3) smartphone-based hearing aid applications (or apps). Common to all these connected devices is that they permit the user to self-adjust and customize their device programs via an accompanying smartphone app. There has been a growing body of literature assessing connected hearing devices in adults living with hearing loss. Overall, the evidence to date supports the notion that all connected hearing devices can improve accessibility to and affordability of amplification. It is unclear, however, whether connected technologies are a clinically effective alternative to traditional hearing aids. Even so, the impact of connectivity is especially pertinent given the sudden disruption caused by the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, whereby connected technologies enable patients to receive treatment through mobile-based, tele-audiology platforms.

Hearing Aid Self-Adjustment: Effects of Formal Speech-Perception Test and Noise

While listening to recorded sentences with a sound-field level of 65 dB SPL, 24 adults with hearing-aid experience used the "Goldilocks" explore-and-select procedure to adjust level and spectrum of amplified speech to preference. All participants started adjustment from the same generic response. Amplification was provided by a custom-built Master Hearing Aid with online processing of microphone input. Primary goals were to assess the effects of including a formal speech-perception test between repeated self-adjustments and of adding multitalker babble (signal-to-noise ratio +6 dB) during self-adjustment. The speech test did not affect group-mean self-adjusted output, which was close to the National Acoustics Laboratories' prescription for Non-Linear hearing aids. Individuals, however, showed a wide range of deviations from this prescription. Extreme deviations at the first self-adjustment fell by a small but significant amount at the second. The multitalker babble had negligible effect on group-mean self-selected output but did have predictable effects on word recognition in sentences and on participants' opinion regarding the most important subjective criterion guiding self-adjustment. Phoneme recognition in monosyllabic words was better with the generic starting response than without amplification and improved further after self-adjustment. The findings continue to support the efficacy of hearing aid self-fitting, at least for level and spectrum. They do not support the need for inclusion of a formal speech-perception test, but they do support the value of completing more than one self-adjustment. Group-mean data did not indicate a need for threshold-based prescription as a starting point for self-adjustment.

Preferences for Hearing Aid Attributes Among People with Moderate or Greater Hearing Loss in Rural China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Hearing loss has not received sufficient attention, especially in low- and middle-income countries where more than 80% of the people with hearing loss reside. Little is known about the preference for hearing aids among people with hearing loss in developing countries. The aim of this study is to elicit the preferences for hearing aid attributes among rural Chinese adults with moderate or greater hearing loss and examine how preferences vary across different individual socioeconomic characteristics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We interviewed 125 adults in two rural counties in Shandong province in China. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with eight attributes, comprising out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, hearing aid style, effective in quiet settings and noisy settings, feedback (whistling), connectivity, water/sweat resistance and battery life, were employed to examine participants' preference for hearing aids. Mixed logit models were used for the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

While OOP costs, effectiveness in quiet settings, water/sweat resistance and battery life were significantly associated with choosing a hearing aid, rural Chinese adults with moderate or greater hearing loss valued effectiveness in noisy settings above other attributes of hearing aids, followed closely by lack of feedback. The preference of the attributes of OOP costs, in the canal hearing aids, effectiveness in noisy settings, connectivity and battery life varied across individual socioeconomic characteristics including sex, marriage, employment, income and education level.

CONCLUSION

Our study supported the view that the development of noise suppression and feedback cancellation systems remained the main challenge for the hearing aid industry. Since OOP costs were also associated with choosing a hearing aid, the policy advice is to improve reimbursements from insurance schemes and/or reduce the costs of hearing aids.

ManCAD100: 100 Years of Audiology and Deaf Education at Manchester

In 2019, the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness celebrates its 100th anniversary. To mark the centenary, this special issue is a collection of papers that showcases current research in Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness. The Editorial provides a brief history and description of the Centre and an overview of the special issue.