Hearing aid Experiences of Adult Hearing aid Owners During and After Fitting: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

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.

Meaningful life changes following hearing aid use: a qualitative user perspective

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore meaningful life changes due to hearing aid use in adult users.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey design was used with open-ended questions analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

US-based adult hearing aid users (n = 653) from the Hearing Tracker website community and Lexie Hearing database.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 65.4 years (13.6 SD), including 61.2% males, 38.3% females (0.5% other). Analysis of 2122 meaning units from responses identified two broad domains: 'meaningful benefits' (n = 1709; 80.5%) and 'remaining difficulties' (n = 413; 19.5%). The meaningful benefits domain included five categories (27 sub-categories): (a) psychosocial benefits, (b) improvements in hearing, (c) personal benefits, (d) hearing aid features and connectivity, and (e) situational benefits. Participants reported enhanced relationships and improved occupational functioning as key benefits. The remaining difficulties domain contained four categories (25 sub-categories): (a) hearing aid limitations, (b) hearing and communication issues, (c) situational difficulties, and (d) personal issues. Notable difficulties included hearing aid design issues and challenges in noisy environments.

CONCLUSION

Hearing aid users reported diverse benefits and persistent challenges related to device use, illustrating the complexity of their lived experiences. These findings can inform empathetic, effective rehabilitation strategies and user-centric hearing aid technologies.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

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

PURPOSE

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

ACTION STATEMENTS

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

Hearing help-seeking, hearing device uptake and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to examine the current literature on help-seeking, hearing device uptake, and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Searches of three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus) yielded nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was determined using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The studies' level of evidence was determined according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

All included studies involved adult participants. Three studies examined help-seeking. Self-reported difficulty, poor speech-in-noise performance, and emotional responses to the hearing difficulty were identified as factors influencing help-seeking. Six studies examined the use of hearing devices as an intervention, including hearing aids (n = 4), hearables (n = 1), and FM systems (n = 1). Using hearing devices improved self-perceived hearing difficulty, speech-in-noise understanding, and motivation to address hearing difficulties. No studies focused on hearing device uptake. The quality assessment indicated limited methodological rigour across the studies, with varying levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the use of hearing devices as an intervention for individuals with subclinical hearing loss. However, more research is essential, particularly focusing on help-seeking, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes using well-controlled study designs.

Auditory Profile-Based Hearing Aid Fitting: Self-Reported Benefit for First-Time Hearing Aid Users

Background: Although hearing aids (HAs) can compensate for reduced audibility, functional outcomes and benefits vary widely across individuals. As part of the Danish 'Better hEAring Rehabilitation' (BEAR) project, four distinct auditory profiles differing in terms of audiometric thresholds and supra-threshold hearing abilities were recently identified. Additionally, profile-specific HA-fitting strategies were proposed. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the self-reported benefit of these profile-based HA fittings in a group of new HA users. Methods: A total of 205 hearing-impaired older adults were recruited from two Danish university hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups: (1) NAL-NL2 gain prescription combined with default advanced feature settings ('reference fitting') or (2) auditory profile-based fitting with tailored gain prescription and advanced feature settings ('BEAR fitting'). Two months after treatment, the participants completed the benefit version of the short form of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12-B) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) questionnaire. Results: Overall, participants reported a clear benefit from HA treatment. However, no significant differences in the SSQ12-B or IOI-HA scores between the reference and BEAR fittings were found. Conclusion: First-time users experience clear benefits from HA treatment. Auditory profile-based HA fitting warrants further investigation.

Reasons for hearing aid uptake in the United States: a qualitative analysis of open-text responses from a large-scale survey of user-perspectives

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the main reasons for hearing aid uptake from a user perspective and recommendations to others with hearing difficulties.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey design was used. Responses to a single open-ended question were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants (n = 642) included adult hearing aid users sampled from the Hearing Tracker website community and Lexie Hearing user databases in the United States.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 65.4 years (13.7 SD) and included 61.8% males, 37.7% females, 0.3% non-binary, and 0.2% preferred not to say. Reasons for hearing aid uptake were categorised into three domains (personal impact, social difficulties, and auditory difficulties), containing 11 main categories and 48 sub-categories. User recommendations to others with hearing difficulties constituted eight main categories (timely help, trial period, support, affordability, technology, direct-to-consumer hearing aids, adjustments, and advocacy) and 32 sub-categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to take up hearing aids included intrinsic factors like readiness to change and extrinsic factors such as the availability of finances. The most frequent recommendation to others was not to delay seeking hearing help and to get hearing aids. Our findings may support strategies to facilitate behaviour change for improved hearing aid uptake.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction: Content Validity and Readability

PURPOSE

Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available to measure hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. It is unclear to what extent currently available PROMs on hearing aid outcomes, often developed decades ago, meet current guidelines for good content validity and readability. This study evaluated the content validity and readability of PROMs that focus on perceived hearing aid benefit and/or satisfaction.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted to identify eligible instruments. Content validity evaluation included mapping extracted questionnaire items to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. In addition, study design in content validity methodology was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments study design checklist for PROM instruments. Readability was estimated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook measure.

RESULTS

Thirteen questionnaires were identified and evaluated. Item content focused primarily on the components of environmental factors as well as activity limitations and participation restrictions with less emphasis on body functions and personal factors. The content validity methodology analysis revealed an underuse or lack of reporting of a qualitative methodology in assessing patient and professional perspectives. All the included questionnaires exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level.

CONCLUSIONS

The categories covered by hearing aid PROMs vary considerably, with no single instrument comprehensively covering all the key ICF components. Future development of hearing aid outcome measures should consider a mixed methodology approach for improved content validity and ensure an appropriate reading level.

Real-life and real-time hearing aid experiences: Insights from self-initiated ecological momentary assessments and natural language analysis

Introduction

Smartphone technology can provide an effective means to bring real-life and (near-)real-time feedback from hearing aid wearers into the clinic. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) encourages listeners to report on their experiences during or shortly after they take place in order to minimize recall bias, e.g., guided by surveys in a mobile application. Allowing listeners to describe experiences in their own words, further, ensures that answers are independent of predefined jargon or of how survey questions are formulated. Through these means, one can obtain ecologically valid sets of data, for instance during a hearing aid trial, which can support clinicians to assess the needs of their clients, provide directions for fine-tuning, and counselling. At a larger scale, such datasets would facilitate training of machine learning algorithms that could help hearing technology to anticipate user needs.

Methods

In this retrospective, exploratory analysis of a clinical data set, we performed a cluster analysis on 8,793 open-text statements, which were collected through self-initiated EMAs, provided by 2,301 hearing aid wearers as part of their hearing care. Our aim was to explore how listeners describe their daily life experiences with hearing technology in (near-)real-time, in their own words, by identifying emerging themes in the reports. We also explored whether identified themes correlated with the nature of the experiences, i.e., self-reported satisfaction ratings indicating a positive or negative experience.

Results

Results showed that close to 60% of listeners' reports related to speech intelligibility in challenging situations and sound quality dimensions, and tended to be valued as positive experiences. In comparison, close to 40% of reports related to hearing aid management, and tended to be valued as negative experiences.

Discussion

This first report of open-text statements, collected through self-initiated EMAs as part of clinical practice, shows that, while EMA can come with a participant burden, at least a subsample of motivated hearing aid wearers could use these novel tools to provide feedback to inform more responsive, personalized, and family-centered hearing care.