Feasibility of Using a Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Application to Improve Attitudes Toward Amplification and Hearing Impairment

Consumer and audiologist perspectives on hearables: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore (i) what adults with hearing difficulties want and need from hearables, which we defined as any non-medical personal sound amplification product, and (ii) what hearing care professionals think about hearables.

DESIGN

This was an exploratory, qualitative study conducted using separate focus groups with adults with hearing difficulties and audiologists. Data were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 12 adults with hearing difficulties and 6 audiologists.

RESULTS

Adults with hearing difficulties expressed desire for trustworthy information and support, described evaluating hearables and other devices according to diverse personal criteria, and expressed willingness to vary their budget according to product quality. Audiologists expressed views that hearables are an inferior product but useful tool, that it is not necessarily their role to assist with hearables, that hearables are a source of uncertainty, and that the provision of hearables by audiologists is not currently practical.

CONCLUSION

Adults with hearing difficulties may have complex reasons for considering hearables and may desire a high level of clinical support in this area. Ongoing research into the efficacy and effectiveness of hearables is needed together with research into effective strategies to incorporate hearables into clinical practice.

What's in a name? A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing losses

OBJECTIVE

To assess non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and the impact of device features on outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospectively registered systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Ten studies evaluating personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), and four evaluating smartphone amplification applications (or apps). Devices were classified as "premium" or "basic" based on the number of compression channels (≥16 or <16, respectively).

RESULTS

Meta-analyses showed that premium PSAPs improved speech intelligibility in noise performance compared to unaided, whereas basic PSAPs and smartphone apps did not. Premium PSAPs performed better than basic hearing aids. Premium hearing aids performed better than premium and basic PSAPs, smartphone apps, and basic hearing aids. Although data could not be pooled, similar findings were also found for quality of life, listening ability, cognition, feasibility, and adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Premium PSAPs appear to be an effective non-medical amplification device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Given the overlap in features available, it may be that this is a key consideration when drawing comparisons between devices, rather than the device being named a PSAP or hearing aid. Nevertheless, the extent to which PSAPs are effective without audiological input remains to be determined.

Feasibility of a Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid App for Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Hearing loss is a growing health concern worldwide. Hearing aids (HAs) are the treatment of choice for hearing rehabilitation in most cases of mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, many patients with hearing loss do not use HAs due to their high cost, stigma, and inaccessibility. Since smartphones are widely used, many apps that mimic the amplification function of HAs have been introduced. Smartphone-based HA apps (SHAAs) are affordable and easy to access. However, the audiological benefit of SHAAs has not been determined.

Objective

We compared the audiological performance between an SHAA and a conventional HA in a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were prospectively enrolled from 2 tertiary hospitals and randomly assigned to either an SHAA (Petralex; IT4YOU Corp LLC) or a conventional HA (Siya 1 miniRITE; Oticon A/S). For the cross-over study design, participants used the alternate device and repeated the same 2-month trial. Audiological measurements were obtained using hearing tests, real-ear measurements, and the hearing-in-noise test (HINT). Subjective satisfaction was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).

Results

Overall, 63 participants were screened and 38 completed the study. In sound-field audiometry testing, the SHAA showed a 20- to 60-dB gain in the low-to-high frequencies of the hearing threshold level. The HA provided adequate gain in the middle-to-high frequencies (55, 65, and 75 dB in real-ear measurements), which is the sound level for most speaking volumes. However, the SHAA could not improve word recognition at 50 dB. The HA showed better audiological performance than the SHAA in both quiet and noisy conditions in the HINT. The IOI-HA scores were significantly improved by both the HA and SHAA versus unaided conditions. Among the SHAA users, 37% (14/38), 42% (16/38), 24% (9/38), and 32% (12/38) showed improvement in APHAB scores for ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and aversiveness of sounds, respectively. There were no differences in adverse events between the 2 study groups.

Conclusions

The HA showed better performance than the SHAA in word recognition and the HINT. However, the SHAA was significantly better than unaided hearing in terms of amplification. The SHAA may be a useful hearing assistance device for patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when listening to soft sounds in quiet conditions. The SHAA demonstrated poorer performance than the HA in the mid- to high-frequency sounds that are important for word recognition, sound quality, and hearing in noisy conditions. Further development of the signal technology of SHAAs is needed to improve the sound quality of mid- to high-frequency sounds and overcome noisy environments.

A scoping review of the use of intelligent assistive technologies in rehabilitation practice with older adults

PURPOSE

There is growing interest in intelligent assistive technologies (IATs) in the rehabilitation and support of older adults, however, the factors contributing to or preventing their use in practice are not well understood. This study aimed to develop an overview of current knowledge on barriers and facilitators to the use of smart technologies in rehabilitative practice with older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a scoping review following guidelines proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010). A computerised literature search was conducted using the Scopus and Ovid databases, yielding 7995 citations. Of these, 94 studies met inclusion criteria. Analysis of extracted data identified themes which were explored in semi-structured interviews with a purposefully selected sample of seven clinical rehabilitation practitioners (three physical therapists, two occupational therapists, and two speech-language pathologists).

RESULTS

Barriers and facilitators to using these technologies were associated with accessibility, reported effectiveness, usability, patient-centred considerations, and staff considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative efforts of policy-makers, researchers, manufacturers, rehabilitation professionals, and older persons are needed to improve the design of technologies, develop appropriate funding and reimbursement strategies, and minimise barriers to their appropriate use to support independence and quality of life. Any strategies to improve upon barriers to prescribing smart technologies for older people should leverage the expertise of rehabilitation professionals operating at the interface between older people; their health/mobility; their families; and technology-based solutions.Implications for rehabilitationThere is growing interest in intelligent assistive technologies (IATs) in the rehabilitation of older adults, as well as barriers to their use in practice.Rehabilitation professionals can play a key role in enabling access to IATs by recommending or prescribing their use to their older clients. Strategies to address barriers to the use of IATs for older people should leverage the expertise of rehabilitation professionals operating at the interface between older people, their families, and technology-based solutions.Older people and their families require technical support to initiate and continue to use IATs for rehabilitation. While rehabilitation providers may be well-placed to offer this support, they may require time and organizational support to build and maintain expertise in the fast-advancing field of smart technologies for rehabilitation.Cost and usability are universal challenges across the types of smart technologies considered in this review. Participatory approaches to involving older people in the design and development of smart assistive technologies contribute to better usability of these technologies. Devices and interventions that leverage more readily available devices and lower-cost components may overcome cost barriers to accessibility.

Behavior Change in Chronic Health: Reviewing What We Know, What Is Happening, and What Is Next for Hearing Loss

Untreated age-related sensorineural hearing loss is challenged by low adoption and adherence to hearing aids for treatment. Hearing care has evolved from traditional clinic-controlled treatment to online consumer-centered hearing care, supported by the increasingly person-centered design of hearing aid technology. Greater evidence and a more nuanced understanding of the personal need for adoption versus adherence to the use of consumer hearing care devices are required. Research considering consumer hearing aid acceptance behavior rests on behavior modification theories to guide clinical approaches to increasing hearing aid adoption and adherence. However, in the context of complex chronic health management, there may be a gap in how these theories effectively align with the needs of consumers. Similarly, market data indicates evolving consumer behavior patterns have implications for hearing care theory and implementation, particularly in terms of sustained behavior change. This essay proposes that evidence, including theory and application, be strengthened by revising basic theoretical premises of personal experience with complex chronic health, in addition to considering recent changes in commercial contexts.

Implementation Science: Increasing the Public Health Impact of Audiology Research

PURPOSE

Implementation science aims to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs, practices, and policies in routine care settings. In audiology, as in other health disciplines, there is a persistent research-to-practice gap. Improving the adoption, reach, implementation, and sustainment of effective interventions in audiology would increase their public health impact, ensuring that all individuals needing hearing health care services could benefit from innovations and evidence-based best practices. This tutorial provides an introductory overview of implementation science relevant to the field of audiology, including Internet-based practices and interventions.

METHOD

Major concepts and themes of implementation science are presented, including implementation outcomes, implementation science frameworks, implementation strategies, current topics in implementation science, and study design considerations. Recent publications in audiology are highlighted to illustrate implementation science concepts and themes. The relevance of each topic to the use of evidence-based programs, practices, and policies in audiology is highlighted with reference to recent research in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges in the widespread delivery of evidence-based audiological practices and interventions limit their public health impact. The application of implementation science principles and methods in audiology research, as demonstrated in other areas of health research, can increase our focus on ensuring that effective practices are widely available, accessible, equitable, and sustainable to improve the lives of those who need them.

Knowledge and Expectations of Hearing Aid Apps Among Smartphone Users and Hearing Professionals: Cross-sectional Survey

Background

Despite the increasing prevalence of hearing loss, the cost and psychological barriers to the use of hearing aids may prevent their use in individuals with hearing loss. Patients with hearing loss can benefit from smartphone-based hearing aid apps (SHAAs), which are smartphone apps that use a mobile device as a sound amplifier.

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine how ear, nose, and throat outpatients perceive SHAAs, analyze the factors that affect their perceptions, and estimate the costs of an annual subscription to an app through a self-administered questionnaire survey of smartphone users and hearing specialists.

Methods

This study used a cross-sectional, multicenter survey of both ear, nose, and throat outpatients and hearing specialists. The questionnaire was designed to collect personal information about the respondents and their responses to 18 questions concerning SHAAs in five domains: knowledge, needs, cost, expectations, and information. Perception questions were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions about the expected cost of SHAAs were included in the questionnaire distributed to hearing experts.

Results

Among the 219 smartphone users and 42 hearing specialists, only 8 (3.7%) respondents recognized SHAAs, whereas 18% (47/261) of respondents reported considering the use of an assistive device to improve their hearing capacity. The average perception score was 2.81 (SD 1.22). Among the factors that shaped perceptions of SHAAs, the needs category received the lowest scores (2.02, SD 1.42), whereas the cost category received the highest scores (3.29, SD 1.14). Age was correlated with the information domain (P<.001), and an increased level of hearing impairment resulted in significantly higher points in the needs category (P<.001). Patients expected the cost of an annual app subscription to an SHAA to be approximately US $86, and the predicted cost was associated with economic status (P=.02) and was higher than the prices expected by hearing specialists (P<.001).

Conclusions

Outpatients expected SHAAs to cost more than hearing specialists. However, the perception of the SHAA was relatively low. In this regard, enhanced awareness is required to popularize SHAAs.

Pocketable Labs for Everyone: Synchronized Multi-Sensor Data Streaming and Recording on Smartphones with the Lab Streaming Layer

The streaming and recording of smartphone sensor signals is desirable for mHealth, telemedicine, environmental monitoring and other applications. Time series data gathered in these fields typically benefit from the time-synchronized integration of different sensor signals. However, solutions required for this synchronization are mostly available for stationary setups. We hope to contribute to the important emerging field of portable data acquisition by presenting open-source Android applications both for the synchronized streaming (Send-a) and recording (Record-a) of multiple sensor data streams. We validate the applications in terms of functionality, flexibility and precision in fully mobile setups and in hybrid setups combining mobile and desktop hardware. Our results show that the fully mobile solution is equivalent to well-established desktop versions. With the streaming application Send-a and the recording application Record-a, purely smartphone-based setups for mobile research and personal health settings can be realized on off-the-shelf Android devices.

Effectiveness of a Self-Fitting Tool for User-Driven Fitting of Hearing Aids

Hearing aids can be effective devices to compensate for age- or non-age-related hearing losses. Their overall adoption in the affected population is still low, especially in underdeveloped countries in the subpopulation experiencing milder hearing loss. One of the major reasons for low adoption is the need for repeated complex fitting by professional audiologists, which is often not completed for various reasons. As a result, self-fitting procedures have been appearing as an alternative. Key open questions with these digital tools are linked to their effectiveness, utilized algorithms, and achievable end-results. A digital self-fitting prototype tool with a novel quick four-step fitting workflow was evaluated in a study on 19 individuals with moderate hearing loss. The tool was evaluated in a double-blinded, randomized study, having two study aims: comparing traditional audiological fitting with the new self-fitting tool, which can also be used as a remote tool. The main reported results show moderately high usability and user satisfaction obtained during self-fitting, and quasi-equivalence of the performance of the classical audiological fitting approach. The digital self-fitting tool enables multiple sessions and easy re-fitting, with the potential to outperform the classical fitting approach.

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.