Exploring Factors That Contribute to the Success of Rehabilitation With Hearing Aids

OBJECTIVES

Hearing aids are an essential and important part of hearing rehabilitation. The combination of technical data on hearing aids and individual rehabilitation needs can give insight into the factors that contribute to the success of rehabilitation. This study sets out to investigate if different subgroups of (comparable) hearing aids lead to differences in the success of rehabilitation, and whether these differences vary between different domains of auditory functioning.

DESIGN

This study explored the advantages of including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the process of purchasing new hearing aids in a large sample of successful hearing aid users. Subject data were obtained from 64 (commercial) hearing aid dispensers and 10 (noncommercial) audiological centers in the Netherlands. The PROM was a 32-item questionnaire and was used to determine the success of rehabilitation using hearing aids by measuring auditory disability over time. The items were mapped on six domains of auditory functioning: detection, discrimination, localization, speech in quiet, speech in noise, and noise tolerance, encompassing a variety of daily-life listening situations. Hearing aids were grouped by means of cluster analysis, resulting in nine subgroups. In total, 1149 subjects were included in this study. A general linear model was used to model the final PROM results. Model results were analyzed via a multifactor Analysis of Variance. Post hoc analyses provided detailed information on model variables.

RESULTS

Results showed a strong statistically significant effect of hearing aids on self-perceived auditory functioning in general. Clinically relevant differences were found for auditory domains including detection, speech in quiet, speech in noise, and localization. There was only a small, but significant, effect of the different subgroups of hearing aids on the final PROM results, where no differences were found between the auditory domains. Minor differences were found between results obtained in commercial and noncommercial settings, or between novice and experienced users. Severity of Hearing loss, age, gender, and hearing aid style (i.e., behind-the-ear versus receiver-in-canal type) did not have a clinically relevant effect on the final PROM results.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of hearing aids has a large positive effect on self-perceived auditory functioning. There was however no salient effect of the different subgroups of hearing aids on the final PROM results, indicating that technical properties of hearing aids only play a limited role in this respect. This study challenges the belief that premium devices outperform basic ones, highlighting the need for personalized rehabilitation strategies and the importance of evaluating factors contributing to successful rehabilitation for clinical practice.