Hearing aid effectiveness after aural rehabilitation - individual versus group (HEARING) trial: RCT design and baseline characteristics

Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Hearing loss is one of the most common chronic disabilities in older adults, yet reported rates of users' satisfaction with hearing aids are low. Some believe that physicians can provide patients who are pursuing a hearing aid fitting an impartial opinion that will improve hearing aid satisfaction.

Objective

To determine whether a physician consultation increased or decreased patients' satisfaction with hearing aids compared with patients undergoing hearing aid fitting with a dispensing audiologist alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, parallel-group, standard regimen-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted in offices of audiologists, family physicians, and a hospital-based neurotologist in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and recruited participants from July 2016 to December 2020 with a 3-month postintervention follow-up. The final data analysis was conducted on March 25, 2022. Adult first-time hearing aid users with averaged sensorineural hearing losses of more than 25 dB were prospectively allocated by random number generation to control and intervention groups. Participants were excluded from analysis if they did not attend follow-up or complete the study questionnaire.

Interventions

Control participants were followed up solely by their dispensing audiologist. The intervention group attended a single structured visit with a physician in addition to their audiologist's determined follow-up.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome: hearing aid satisfaction 3 months postfitting as measured by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire. Secondary outcome: number of returned hearing aids. Prerecruitment null hypothesis: no intergroup difference in postfitting hearing aid satisfaction. Intergroup difference in mean SADL questionnaire scores analyzed by effect size and the Student t test and proportion of returned hearing aids by the Fischer exact test.

Results

A total of 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [8.5] years; 64 women [48.1%]) were recruited. Of these, 51 randomized to the control group (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [8.3] years; 28 women [54.9%]) and 42 to the physician intervention (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [7.6] years; 17 women [40.5%]) had results that were analyzed. There was no clinically meaningful intergroup difference in participants' SADL scores (control: mean [SD] score, 5.33 [0.72]; physician consultation: mean [SD] score, 5.35 [0.61]), the mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.29), or returned hearing aids (control, 1; physician consultation, 0).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a physician consultation that is focused on hearing change does not alter a patient's satisfaction with hearing aids 3 months postfitting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02842905.

Improving Measurement Efficiency of the Inner EAR Scale with Item Response Theory

Objectives

(1) To assess the 11-item Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (Inner EAR) instrument with item response theory (IRT). (2) To determine whether the underlying latent ability could also be accurately represented by a subset of the items for use in high-volume clinical scenarios. (3) To determine whether the Inner EAR instrument correlates with pure tone thresholds and word recognition scores.

Design

IRT evaluation of prospective cohort data.

Setting

Tertiary care academic ambulatory otolaryngology clinic.

Subjects and Methods

Modern psychometric methods, including factor analysis and IRT, were used to assess unidimensionality and item properties. Regression methods were used to assess prediction of word recognition and pure tone audiometry scores.

Results

The Inner EAR scale is unidimensional, and items varied in their location and information. Information parameter estimates ranged from 1.63 to 4.52, with higher values indicating more useful items. The IRT model provided a basis for identifying 2 sets of items with relatively lower information parameters. Item information functions demonstrated which items added insubstantial value over and above other items and were removed in stages, creating a 8- and 3-item Inner EAR scale for more efficient assessment. The 8-item version accurately reflected the underlying construct. All versions correlated moderately with word recognition scores and pure tone averages.

Conclusion

The 11-, 8-, and 3-item versions of the Inner EAR scale have strong psychometric properties, and there is correlational validity evidence for the observed scores. Modern psychometric methods can help streamline care delivery by maximizing relevant information per item administered.

Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Acquired adult-onset hearing loss is a common long-term condition for which the most common intervention is hearing aid fitting. However, up to 40% of people fitted with a hearing aid either fail to use it or may not gain optimal benefit from it. This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term effectiveness of interventions to promote the use of hearing aids in adults with acquired hearing loss fitted with at least one hearing aid.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 13 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed to improve or promote hearing aid use in adults with acquired hearing loss compared with usual care or another intervention. We excluded interventions that compared hearing aid technology. We classified interventions according to the 'chronic care model' (CCM). The primary outcomes were hearing aid use (measured as adherence or daily hours of use) and adverse effects (inappropriate advice or clinical practice, or patient complaints). Secondary patient-reported outcomes included quality of life, hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit and communication. Outcomes were measured over the short ( 12 to < 52 weeks) and long term (one year plus).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 studies involving a total of 4129 participants. Risk of bias across the included studies was variable. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be very low or low for the primary outcomes where data were available.The majority of participants were over 65 years of age with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Six of the studies (287 participants) assessed long-term outcomes.All 37 studies tested interventions that could be classified using the CCM as self-management support (ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home) and/or delivery system design interventions (just changing how the service was delivered). Self-management support interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on adherence, adverse effects or hearing aid benefit. Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect on quality of life over the medium term. Self-management support reduced short- to medium-term hearing handicap (two studies, 87 participants; mean difference (MD) -12.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.11 to -2.48 (0 to 100 scale)) and increased the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term (one study, 52 participants; MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23 (0 to 5 scale)). The clinical significance of these statistical findings is uncertain. It is likely that the outcomes were clinically significant for some, but not all, participants. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was very low. No self-management support studies reported long-term outcomes. Delivery system design interventionsThese interventions did not significantly affect adherence or daily hours of hearing aid use in the short to medium term, or adverse effects in the long term. We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on quality of life. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit or the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. Long-term outcome measurement was rare. Combined self-management support/delivery system design interventionsOne combined intervention showed evidence of a statistically significant effect on adherence in the short term (one study, 167 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). However, there was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on daily hours of hearing aid use over the long term, or the short to medium term. No studies of this type investigated adverse effects. There was no evidence of an effect on quality of life over the long term, or short to medium term. These combined interventions reduced hearing handicap in the short to medium term (15 studies, 728 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.04). This represents a small-moderate effect size but there is no evidence of a statistically significant effect over the long term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on long-term hearing aid benefit (two studies, 69 participants, MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58 (1 to 5 scale)), but no evidence of an effect over the short to medium term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on the use of verbal communication strategies in the short term (four studies, 223 participants, MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74 (0 to 5 scale)), but not the long term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low.We found no studies that assessed the effect of other CCM interventions (decision support, the clinical information system, community resources or health system changes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some low to very low quality evidence to support the use of self-management support and complex interventions combining self-management support and delivery system design in adult auditory rehabilitation. However, effect sizes are small. The range of interventions that have been tested is relatively limited. Future research should prioritise: long-term outcome assessment; development of a core outcome set for adult auditory rehabilitation; and study designs and outcome measures that are powered to detect incremental effects of rehabilitative healthcare system changes.

Tools for evaluation of restriction on auditory participation: systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

To systematically review studies that used questionnaires for the evaluation of restriction on auditory participation in adults and the elderly.

RESEARCH STRATEGY

Studies from the last five years were selected through a bibliographic collection of data in national and international journals in the following electronic databases: ISI Web of Science and Virtual Health Library - BIREME, which includes the LILACS and MEDLINE databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies available fully; published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish; whose participants were adults and/or the elderly and that used questionnaires for the evaluation of restriction on auditory participation.

DATA ANALYSIS

Initially, the studies were selected based on the reading of titles and abstracts. Then, the articles were fully and the information was included in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist.

RESULTS

Three-hundred seventy studies were found in the researched databases; 14 of these studies were excluded because they were found in more than one database. The titles and abstracts of 356 articles were analyzed; 40 of them were selected for full reading, of which 26 articles were finally selected. In the present review, nine instruments were found for the evaluation of restriction on auditory participation.

CONCLUSION

The most used questionnaires for the assessment of the restriction on auditory participation were the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), and Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening (HHIE-S). The use of restriction on auditory participation questionnaires can assist in validating decisions in audiology practices and be useful in the fitting of hearing aids and results of aural rehabilitation.

Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Acquired adult-onset hearing loss is a common long-term condition for which the most common intervention is hearing aid fitting. However, up to 40% of people fitted with a hearing aid either fail to use it or may not gain optimal benefit from it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term effectiveness of interventions to promote the use of hearing aids in adults with acquired hearing loss fitted with at least one hearing aid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 6 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed to improve or promote hearing aid use in adults with acquired hearing loss compared with usual care or another intervention. We excluded interventions that compared hearing aid technology. We classified interventions according to the 'chronic care model' (CCM). The primary outcomes were hearing aid use (measured as adherence or daily hours of use) and adverse effects (inappropriate advice or clinical practice, or patient complaints). Secondary patient-reported outcomes included quality of life, hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit and communication. Outcomes were measured over the short (</= 12 weeks), medium (> 12 to < 52 weeks) and long term (one year plus).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies involving a total of 2072 participants. The risk of bias across the included studies was variable. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be very low or low for the primary outcomes where data were available.The majority of participants were over 65 years of age with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Six of the studies (1018 participants) were conducted in a military veteran population. Six of the studies (287 participants) assessed long-term outcomes.All 32 studies tested interventions that could be classified as self management support (ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home) and/or delivery system design interventions (just changing how the service was delivered) according to the CCM. Self management support interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on adherence, adverse effects or hearing aid benefit. Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect on quality of life over the medium term. Self management support reduced short- to medium-term hearing handicap (two studies, 87 participants; mean difference (MD) -12.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.11 to -2.48 (0 to 100 scale)) and increased the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term (one study, 52 participants; MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23 (0 to 5 scale)). The clinical significance of these statistical findings is uncertain but it is likely that the outcomes were clinically significant for some, but not all, participants. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was very low. No self management support studies reported long-term outcomes. Delivery system design interventions These interventions did not significantly affect adherence or daily hours of hearing aid use in the short to medium term, or adverse effects in the long term. We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on quality of life. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit or the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. Long-term outcome measurement was rare. Combined self management support/delivery system design interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of complex interventions combining components of self management support and delivery system design on adherence or adverse effects. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on daily hours of hearing aid use over the long term, or the short to medium term. Similarly, there was no evidence of an effect on quality of life over the long term, or short to medium term. These combined interventions reduced hearing handicap in the short to medium term (13 studies, 485 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.06). This represents a small-moderate effect size but there is no evidence of a statistically significant effect over the long term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on long-term hearing aid benefit (two studies, 69 participants, MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58 (1 to 5 scale)), but no evidence of effect over the short to medium term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on the use of verbal communication strategies in the short term (four studies, 223 participants, MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74 (0 to 5 scale)), but not the long term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low.We found no studies that assessed the effect of other CCM interventions (decision support, the clinical information system, community resources or health system changes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some low to very low quality evidence to support the use of self management support and complex interventions combining self management support and delivery system design in adult auditory rehabilitation. However, effect sizes are small and the range of interventions that have been tested is relatively limited. Priorities for future research should be assessment of long-term outcome a year or more after the intervention, development of a core outcome set for adult auditory rehabilitation and development of study designs and outcome measures that are powered to detect incremental effects of rehabilitative healthcare system changes over and above the provision of a hearing aid.

Transcultural adaptation to Spanish of the instrument "Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation" for the assessment of quality of life in patients using hearing aids

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

It is becoming increasingly important to have reliable and valid questionnaires. This becomes especially important when evaluating hearing loss.

THE AIM OF THIS WORK WAS TO VALIDATE

the "Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation" (EAR) questionnaire for the Spanish-speaking population. This instrument assesses quality of life and hearing aspects in patients using hearing aids.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Cross-sectional validation study. A cultural adaptation through the use of English to Spanish translations and re-translations was carried out. The validity and reliability of the newly adapted instrument were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 69 individuals (44 older adults and 25 younger adults) were examined. The pure-tone averages (PTA, 500, 1,000 and 2,000 Hz) were 47.3 dB HL and 47.1 dB HL for the left and right ears, respectively. The mean maximum speech discrimination in silence for monosyllables were 83.3% and 82.9% for the left and right ears, respectively. Internal consistency presented Cronbach alpha values of 0.85 and 0.77 for the internal and external dimensions, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.80 for the internal module and 0.85 for the external module. Construct validity reported a correlation coefficient of 0.71 at baseline and 0.76 at 3 months after the initial assessment for the internal module, and 0.62 at baseline and 0.74 at 3 months after the initial assessment for the external module. The size effects were 1.3 and 1.1 for the internal and external modules, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The Spanish version of the EAR questionnaire seems to be a reliable and valid instrument. The evaluation of audiological aspects, as well as aspects relating to aesthetics and comfort are the main strengths of this instrument. Finally, the EAR scale is more sensitive to change than other scales.