Speech perception and quality of life of open-fit hearing aid users

Hearing aid utilization in Ontario - a population based study

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the most common sensory impairments and hearing aids are the most common unmet assistive device need among individuals with a disability. The benefits of hearing interventions are well-documented as they are known to deter the sequalae of hearing loss including social isolation, poor mental health, falls and cognitive decline. Identifying trends in hearing aid users can provide valuable information for improving access to hearing loss interventions.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from ICES databases that were used to generate a cohort of 372,448 individuals in Ontario, Canada, who first claimed hearing aids between April 2007 and March 2018 through the Assistive Devices Program.

RESULTS

The data indicated that the frequency distribution of hearing aids has steadily inclined since 2007. The mean age of hearing aid users was 70.25 ± 14.70 years and higher neighbourhood income quintile was associated with greater hearing aid use (p < 0.001). Most first claims occurred after visiting primary care physicians (70.60%) compared with otolaryngology (13.39%). An examination of clinical comorbidities revealed hypertension (63.41%), and diabetes (24.93%) to be the most common. Regression analysis demonstrated a positive associated between age and most comorbidities. Furthermore, higher neighbourhood income quintiles were associated with a reduced risk of having the examined comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines patient demographics and clinical comorbidities in a cohort of hearing aid users in Ontario. The results identify associations between demographics and comorbidities that provide information relevant for improving access to hearing interventions and clinical decision-making in primary care.Implications for RehabilitationScreening for hearing loss (using an audiogram) in elderly individuals that manage multiple comorbidities, and any patient with significant risk factors for hearing loss (e.g., noise exposure history, prior ototoxic medications, prior head injury, history of ear surgery, family history of hearing loss) will identify deficits and direct appropriate hearing interventions.Improving access to care in low-income communities should include community-based education around expectation management and communication strategies to reinforce proper use and care of hearing devices.Geographic proximity to hearing testing facilities and hearing aid dispensaries is a significant barrier to hearing rehabilitation strategies.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no).

DESIGN

We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider.

RESULTS

All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Visual Speech Recognition: Improving Speech Perception in Noise through Artificial Intelligence

OBJECTIVES

To compare speech perception (SP) in noise for normal-hearing (NH) individuals and individuals with hearing loss (IWHL) and to demonstrate improvements in SP with use of a visual speech recognition program (VSRP).

STUDY DESIGN

Single-institution prospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eleven NH and 9 IWHL participants in a sound-isolated booth facing a speaker through a window. In non-VSRP conditions, SP was evaluated on 40 Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test (BKB-SIN) sentences presented by the speaker at 50 A-weighted decibels (dBA) with multiperson babble noise presented from 50 to 75 dBA. SP was defined as the percentage of words correctly identified. In VSRP conditions, an infrared camera was used to track 35 points around the speaker's lips during speech in real time. Lip movement data were translated into speech-text via an in-house developed neural network-based VSRP. SP was evaluated similarly in the non-VSRP condition on 42 BKB-SIN sentences, with the addition of the VSRP output presented on a screen to the listener.

RESULTS

In high-noise conditions (70-75 dBA) without VSRP, NH listeners achieved significantly higher speech perception than IWHL listeners (38.7% vs 25.0%, P = .02). NH listeners were significantly more accurate with VSRP than without VSRP (75.5% vs 38.7%, P < .0001), as were IWHL listeners (70.4% vs 25.0% P < .0001). With VSRP, no significant difference in SP was observed between NH and IWHL listeners (75.5% vs 70.4%, P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

The VSRP significantly increased speech perception in high-noise conditions for NH and IWHL participants and eliminated the difference in SP accuracy between NH and IWHL listeners.

Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual

RESUMO Objetivo Verificar a associação entre qualidade de vida, aspectos socioambientais e estado geral de saúde de usuários de um Serviço de Atenção à Saúde Auditiva. Método Estudo observacional analítico do tipo transversal, com amostra aleatória simples. Realizou-se entrevista semiestruturada com 114 adultos e idosos, entre 19-92 anos, usuários de AASI atendidos em um serviço de saúde auditiva. Os participantes responderam questões referentes à caracterização, dados sociodemográficos e qualidade de vida. Para estudo dos aspectos assistenciais, realizou-se busca nos prontuários. Foram realizados os testes Mann Whitney, Quiquadrado e Exato de Fisher para associação. As análises foram realizadas no software STATA considerando 5% de significância. Para a análise multivariada, iniciou-se o modelo cheio com todas as variáveis significativas a 20%. Considerou-se modelo de regressão logística, sendo repetido até restarem as variáveis com p<5%. Resultados A maioria dos participantes era do gênero feminino, com idade superior a 60 anos e realizou a primeira consulta com o fonoaudiólogo. Quanto ao WHOQOL-bref, mais da metade da amostra relatou boa qualidade de vida e satisfação com a saúde. Em relação às queixas associadas, a maioria dos que não apresentavam tontura, plenitude auricular e depressão referiu boa qualidade de vida. Observou-se associação com significância estatística entre a satisfação com a saúde, maior média de idade e menor escolaridade. Na análise multivariada, o uso efetivo do AASI e não apresentar histórico de tontura associaram-se à boa qualidade de vida. Para a variável saúde, verificou-se que não apresentar tontura aumentou as chances de estar satisfeito com a saúde, enquanto que a cada ano a mais de escolaridade a chance de estar satisfeito reduziu. Conclusão O uso do AASI está relacionado a uma boa percepção da qualidade de vida e do estado de saúde de indivíduos que apresentam perda auditiva.