Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol

Verification of EasyGain Settings in the Roger Remote Microphone System

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the EasyGain settings on a wireless receiver used with a remote microphone (RM) affected output as a function of hearing loss and receiver type.

METHOD

To assess the effects of the EasyGain setting on a Roger receiver, a Phonak Naida V90 superpower hearing aid (HA), two universal Roger X (02) receivers, two Roger 18 integrated receivers, and a Roger Inspiro transmitter were used. An electroacoustic evaluation was performed for five degrees of hearing loss ranging from a flat 40 to 80 dB HL, and for nine EasyGain settings from +8 to -8 dB with each Roger receiver.

RESULTS

A three-way analysis of variance indicated significant main effects of hearing loss, receiver type and EasyGain settings, as well as their two-way interactions (p < .05). Overall, the output of the integrated receiver was 2.77 dB higher than that of the universal receiver. The change in output with 2-dB changes in EasyGain setting varied with the degree of hearing loss. For mild hearing loss (40 and 50 dB), every 2-dB change in EasyGain produced an average of 1.93 dB (SD = 0.17) change in the root-mean-square (RMS) output. For the higher degrees of hearing loss (60, 70, and 80 dB HL), the change in RMS varied depending on the range of EasyGain setting as follows: when EasyGain was > 0 dB, every 2-dB change in EasyGain setting produced an average change in RMS output of 1.32 dB (SD = 0.41); however, when EasyGain was ≤ 0 dB, every 2-dB change resulted in a mean 1.95 dB (SD = 0.16) change.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of EasyGain technology on the RMS output are dependent on the interaction of the receiver type, degree of hearing loss, and EasyGain settings. The results highlight the importance of electroacoustic verification to determine appropriate settings for optimal audibility when using an RM system.

Impact of hearing aid technology level at first-fit on self-reported outcomes in patients with presbycusis: a randomized controlled trial

To provide clinical guidance in hearing aid prescription for older adults with presbycusis, we investigated differences in self-reported hearing abilities and hearing aid effectiveness for premium or basic hearing aid users. Secondly, as an explorative analysis, we investigated if differences in gain prescription verified with real-ear measurements explain differences in self-reported outcomes. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the patients were blinded towards the purpose of the study. In total, 190 first-time hearing aid users (>60 years of age) with symmetric bilateral presbycusis were fitted with either a premium or basic hearing aid. The randomization was stratified on age, sex, and word recognition score. Two outcome questionnaires were distributed: the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the short form of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-12). In addition, insertion gains were calculated from real-ear measurements at first-fit for all fitted hearing aids. Premium hearing aid users reported 0.7 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher total SSQ-12 score per item and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.4) scale points higher speech score per item, as well as 0.6 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher qualities score compared to basic-feature hearing aid users. No significant differences in reported hearing aid effectiveness were found using the IOI-HA. Differences in the prescribed gain at 1 and 2 kHz were observed between premium and basic hearing aids within each company. Premium-feature devices yielded slightly better self-reported hearing abilities than basic-feature devices, but a statistically significant difference was only found in three out of seven outcome variables, and the effect was small. The generalizability of the study is limited to community-dwelling older adults with presbycusis. Thus, further research is needed for understanding the potential effects of hearing aid technology for other populations. Hearing care providers should continue to insist on research to support the choice of more costly premium technologies when prescribing hearing aids for older adults with presbycusis. Clinical Trial Registration: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04539847.

A Qualitative Investigation of Clients, Significant Others, and Clinicians' Experiences of Using Wireless Microphone Systems to Manage Hearing Impairment

This study aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of adults with hearing impairment (HI), their significant others (SOs), and clinicians regarding the use and provision of wireless microphone systems (WMS). A qualitative descriptive methodology was used, with a total of 43 participants across three groups: (1) 23 adults with HI who used WMS; (2) 7 SOs of adults who used WMS; and (3) 13 clinicians who provided WMSs to adults with HI. Participants completed an individual semi-structured in-depth interview to explore their experiences, with the data analysed using thematic analysis. The analysis revealed five themes encompassing the perceptions and experiences of WMSs: (1) with experience and clear expectations, users believe that WMS can make a difference; (2) the trial and decision-making process is important; (3) clients' experiences using WMS; (4) issues with WMS and technology; and (5) users require ongoing training and support to use WMS. These findings highlight the complexities of providing and using WMS with adults with HI. However, clients, SOs, and clinicians all reported that, with appropriate experience, expectations, training, and support, WMS can make a real difference in listening and communicating in different situations. There is also an opportunity to involve SOs more throughout the rehabilitation process.

Defining a Patient-Centred Core Outcome Domain Set for the Assessment of Hearing Rehabilitation With Clients and Professionals

Background

A variety of outcome domains are currently measured for the assessment of hearing rehabilitation. To date, there is no consensus about which outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured. In addition, most studies seeking to develop core outcome sets and measures for hearing rehabilitation services have primarily focussed on the opinions and expertise of researchers, and, to a lesser extent, clinicians, rather than also involving clients of those services. The principles of experience-based co-design suggest that health services, researchers, and policymakers should come together with clients and their families to design health services and define what metrics should be used for their success.

Objectives

This study aimed to seek views and consensus from a range of key stakeholders to define which client-centred self-report outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured, in a national publicly funded hearing rehabilitation scheme. In addition, the study aimed to identify current and future potential mechanisms and systems to standardise the collection of data and reporting of outcomes, to enable comparison across clients and hearing service providers.

Methods

Two stakeholder groups participated in a three-round online Delphi process: (1) 79 professional stakeholders involved in the delivery of hearing services in Australia, and (2) 64 hearing rehabilitation services’ clients identified by not-for-profit consumer organisations. An initial set of in-person workshops scoped the key issues upon which to develop the initial open-ended questions and subsequent Likert-scale statements addressing these issues. These statements were then distributed to both groups in an online survey. The respondent ratings were summarised, and the summary was returned to respondents along with a second round of the survey. This process was then repeated once more. The five most important outcome domains from both groups were then combined, and a consensus workshop of seven professionals and three client advocates agreed on the top four ranked domains.

Results

A range of potential outcome domains were identified as relevant indicators of successful hearing rehabilitation. Communication ability, personal relationships, wellbeing, and participation restrictions were identified as a core outcome domain set that should be measured as a minimum for patients receiving hearing rehabilitation. There was little agreement on the preferred timepoints for collection of outcome measures, with respondents expressing the view that this should be established by research once a set of outcome measures has been selected. However, there was broad agreement that measurements of these domains should be collected at baseline (before the provision of hearing rehabilitation) and no earlier than 3 months following the completion of rehabilitation. Potential benefits and issues with the development of a national outcomes database/collection system were also identified and prioritised, with participants highlighting the importance of valid, high-quality, trustworthy, and comprehensive data collection.

Conclusion

These results provide a Core Outcome Domain Set for the self-reported evaluation of hearing rehabilitation and provide important background information for the design of methods to implement them across hearing healthcare systems. However, the wide range of outcome domains identified as potentially providing important additional information and the lack of specific measures to address these domains strongly suggest that there is still more research to be done. Ongoing stakeholder engagement will continue to be vital for future implementation. In addition, further research is required to determine the optimal time following hearing rehabilitation to utilise any particular outcome measure.

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study

BACKGROUND

Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).

METHODS

Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.

RESULTS

There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.

CONCLUSIONS

HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

Evidence-Based Interventions for Adult Aural Rehabilitation: That Was Then, This Is Now

More than a decade after Arthur Boothroyd published "Adult Aural Rehabilitation: What Is It and Does It Work?," the four cornerstones of adult aural rehabilitation are re-examined in terms of research that we and others in the field have undertaken. The focus is on novel advances in high-quality research relating to interventions to support self-management for hearing aids and other listening devices (sensory management), knowledge and skill (instruction), auditory and cognitive training (perceptual training), and motivational engagement (counseling). Much of this new research has a theoretical underpinning (e.g., behavior change theory) to better guide the development and evaluation of interventions, with a focus on self-management and patient-centered approaches. New and emerging technologies that support e- and m-health delivery of interventions provide greater personalization and interactivity to promote self-management of hearing loss. Looking to the future, there remains a requirement for a set of relevant and appropriate outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions trialed in clinical studies. There is a continuing need for high-quality evidence, underpinned by contemporary theory, to increase the likelihood that translational adult aural rehabilitation research that aims to benefit patients will be applied in future clinical practice.

An Application of the Medical Research Council's Guidelines for Evaluating Complex Interventions: A Usability Study Assessing Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults With Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to provide an example of the Medical Research Council's guidelines for evaluating complex health care interventions in the context of smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss.

METHOD

Twenty existing hearing aid users trialed 1 of the following smartphone-connected listening devices: made-for-smartphone hearing aids, a personal sound amplification product, and a smartphone "hearing aid" application used with either wireless or wired earphones. Following 2 weeks of use in their everyday lives, participants completed self-report outcome measures.

RESULTS

Relative to conventional hearing aids, self-reported use, benefit, and satisfaction were higher, and residual disability was lower for made-for-smartphone hearing aids. The converse was found for the other smartphone-connected listening devices trialed. Similarly, overall usability was judged to be "above average" for the made-for-smartphone hearing aids, but "below average" for the remaining devices.

CONCLUSIONS

This developmental work, guided by the Medical Research Council's framework, lays the foundation for feasibility and pilot studies, leading to high-quality research assessing the effectiveness of smartphone-connected listening devices. This future evidence is necessary to guide health care commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults living with hearing loss.

The ALFA4Hearing Model (At-a-Glance Labeling for Features of Apps for Hearing Health Care) to Characterize Mobile Apps for Hearing Health Care

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to analyze, by using the ALFA4Hearing model (At-a-Glance Labeling for Features of Apps for Hearing Health Care), a sample of apps over a wide range of services in the hearing health care (HHC) domain in order to take a first picture of the current scenario of apps for HHC.

METHOD

We tested 120 apps, and we characterized them by using the ALFA4Hearing model, which includes 29 features in 5 components (Promoters, Services, Implementation, Users, and Descriptive Information). We analyzed (a) the distribution of the 29 features in the sample, (b) the relationship between the Implementation features and the Services provided by the apps, and (c) the distribution of the 29 features in apps for professional use.

RESULTS

The analysis of our sample of apps by means of the ALFA4Hearing model highlighted interesting trends and emerging challenges. Also, results suggested many potential opportunities for research and clinical practice, such as greater involvement of stakeholders, improved evidence base, higher technical quality, and usability.

CONCLUSIONS

The ALFA4Hearing model is able to represent, at a glance, a large amount of information about apps for HHC, highlighting trends and challenges. It might be useful to HHC professionals as a basis for app characterization and informed decision making.