The Benefits of Hearing Aids for Adults: A Systematic Umbrella Review.

Objective This systematic review examined the audiological and non-audiological factors that influence hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction in adults based on studies published during the last decade (2010 and 2023). Design Studies were identified by using PRISMA guidelines for systematic searches on five platforms (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost including CINAHL and Academic Search Complete). The National Institute of Health Quality assessment tool and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine tool were used for quality assessment and grading of level of evidence. Results Forty-six articles were included in the review. A total of 101 significant factors influencing hearing aid use (n = 47), benefit (n = 17) and satisfaction (n = 37) were identified. Clear determinants of hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction included hearing sensitivity, self-reported hearing difficulty, speech perception, attitude and beliefs. 34 cross-sectional studies in this review were graded level 4, 9 cohort studies rated level 3, and 3 randomised control trials rated level 2. Conclusion Factors associated with hearing aid outcomes identified in the past decade support previous evidence. New factors like social networks and service-delivery models, have also been identified. These factors require further investigations through high quality studies to further strengthen existing evidence.

This review documented the range and nature of reported outcome measures in the context of adult auditory rehabilitative research. A scoping review conducted as a part of the development of a systematic review of the effect of interventions to improve hearing aid use. The authors searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP; and additional sources for published and unpublished randomized control trials. The date of the search was November 6, 2013. Outcomes were grouped using a framework suggested by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group. Patient outcomes included adherence to hearing aid use, daily hours of aid use, hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit, quality of life, and communication and psychological outcome. Satisfaction and speech perception were frequent secondary outcomes. There was diversity in measures used to report patient outcomes. Outcome categories other than patient health status and behavior were rarely reported. The timing of outcome measurement was often short term (<12 weeks), with a relative lack of evidence on long-term outcomes (>1 year). This review has highlighted considerable diversity in patient-reported outcome measurements in randomized control trials in the context of adult auditory rehabilitation. In addition, there are gaps in the literature with respect to measurement of other outcome types of potential interest to stakeholders, including policymakers and commissioners. Long-term outcome assessment is rare.

Real-World Benefits of Hearing Aids Beyond Better Speech Understanding

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate whether positive focus (PF), an intervention that asks hearing aid users to focus on positive listening experiences, improves hearing aid outcomes for first-time hearing aid users. Design The participants were randomised into a control or PF group. They were fitted with hearing aids and followed for six months after fitting. The PF group was asked to report positive listening experiences in their daily life via an app. Participants in both groups were periodically prompted by the app to answer questionnaires about hearing aid satisfaction and benefit. Two follow-up visits at approximately one and six months were performed. Study sample 20 adult first-time hearing aid users in the control and 18 in the PF group. Results Hearing aid satisfaction and benefit scores were significantly better in the PF group, already at two weeks and throughout the six months. In the PF group, the hearing aid outcomes were positively correlated with the number of submitted positive reports. Conclusions These results point to the importance of asking first-time hearing aid users to focus on positive listening experiences and to reflect upon them. This can lead to improved short- and long-term hearing aid outcomes.

To investigate acclimatization to hearing aids. Forty-eight subjects took part in a study in which hearing aid benefit was measured four times over the initial 3 mos of participation. At the start, 24 subjects were experienced hearing aid users and 24 had never worn a hearing aid before. Subjects wore one of three models of hearing aid with one of six different configurations (combination of frequency response and method of output limiting). Hearing aid benefit was measured with CID W-1 spondees and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) test. Testing took place on Days 0 (day of fitting), 30, 60, and 90. Analyses of variance were used to determine whether hearing aid benefit changed over time as a function of hearing aid user status, hearing aid configuration, and hearing aid volume setting. There were small, nonsignificant changes in hearing aid benefit over the test sessions with both sets of test materials. There were no interactions between hearing aid benefit over time and hearing aid user status or hearing aid volume setting. There was an interaction between benefit over time and hearing aid configuration on one test measure only. The data showed little evidence of acclimatization over the 3 mo of hearing aid use. The test materials used here were low- to mid-frequency sensitive, and, therefore, it is concluded that if acclimatization did occur, it did so primarily at high frequencies. Because the HINT test has good face validity to everyday listening situations, it is suggested that the clinical ramifications of acclimatization are probably small.

Incidence and Predictors of Hearing Aid Use and Ownership Among Older Adults With Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited. To compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices. This randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial. A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction. The primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks). Sixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures. In this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

SUMMARYThis study describes the benefits of hearing aid (HA) use in a sample of elderly experienced HA users (n = 102, mean age 81.1 years), investigating the role of the age, hearing impairment and cognitive function. The benefit was assessed in aided condition by measuring audiometric outcomes (aided thresholds and speech reception in quiet and in noise) and self-assessed outcomes addressing the disability and the handicap domains of auditory dysfunction. Several cognitive abilities were assessed, including short-term memory, working memory and executive functions. To discover potential latent factors and assess which factors significantly influenced the benefit of HA use, age, hearing impairment, cognitive function, audiometric and self-assessed outcomes were examined with multivariate analysis, followed by correlation and regression analysis. The analysis revealed a significant improvement in aided audiometric outcomes and a decrease in the perceived disability and handicap in the sample population. Multivariate, correlation and regression analyses showed that better aided audiometric outcomes were significantly associated with hearing impairment of lower degree and higher cognitive abilities. Moreover, self-assessed outcomes were significantly associated with audiometric outcomes and hearing impairment: subjects with better audiometric outcomes and lower hearing impairment tend to perceive more benefit in using their HAs. Cognition was only indirectly associated with self-assessed outcomes through its direct correlation with aided audiometric outcomes, meaning that the perceived subjective benefit with HA was not directly associated with better cognitive abilities.

Providing amplification is at the heart of most rehabilitation programs for the elderly. Given the importance of quality assurance, methods of quantifying hearing aid fitting success are needed. This study was designed to assess the adequacy of a self-assessment scale at measuring hearing aid benefit following a 3 week interval of hearing aid use. Forty-five new hearing aid users completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) prior to and following 3 weeks of hearing aid use. Results of the study showed a significant reduction in handicap following 3 weeks of hearing aid use, suggesting the feasibility of using the HHIE as an outcome measure for hearing aid success after a brief interval of hearing aid use. Subjects will be followed longitudinally to determine the best time frame in which to administer this scale.

This study aimed to determine whether gain adaptation occurs, and at which frequency bands, among new hearing aid (HA) users. Fifty new and 26 experienced HA users were fitted with three listening programs (NAL-NL1 and NAL-NL1 with low- and high-frequency cuts) in the same hearing instrument family. Real-life gain preferences and comfortable loudness levels were measured one, four, and 13 months post-fitting for the new HA users, and one month post-fitting for the experienced HA users. Relative to experienced HA users, new HA users preferred progressively less overall gain than prescribed as the hearing loss became more severe. Gain adaptation occurred in new HA users with greater hearing loss, but was not complete 13 months post-fitting, and was not explained by changes in loudness perception. Preferences for a high-frequency gain cut by half of all study participants could not be predicted from audiological data. Gain adaptation management is recommended for new HA users with more than a mild hearing loss.

IntroductionThe holistic management of hearing loss (HL) requires an understanding of factors that predict hearing aid (HA) use and benefit beyond the acoustics of listening environments. Although several predictors have...

IntroductionUp to 30% of hearing aids fitted to new adult clients are reported to be of low benefit and used intermittently or not at all. Evidence suggests that additional interventions...

Objective To evaluate the short- and long-term effect of remote synchronous fine-tuning and follow-up visits on hearing-related problems and hearing aid (HA) benefits for first-time HA users. Design A randomised controlled trial. Study sample Patients at public tax-funded HA clinics in Sweden due for aural rehabilitation (AR) were randomised to either an intervention group (n = 33) or a control group (n = 36). Both groups completed the conventional AR process, but the intervention group received synchronous remote fine-tuning of HAs and online follow-up visits. Outcome measures were used before and after intervention, and 6 months and 1 year after intervention. Results Both groups improved hearing-related problems measured with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults over time, and no significant differences were found between the groups. Such improvements were also found for the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit except for the subscale aversiveness. Both groups decreased the use of HAs in hours/day over time. The intervention group reported significant improvements in activity limitation when measured directly after the intervention, compared to the control group. Conclusion Synchronous remote fine-tuning and follow-ups for first-time HA users did not influence the outcomes of hearing-related problems and HA benefits differently from standard care at our clinic.

Suboptimal hearing aid use negatively impacts health and well-being. The aim of this study was to conduct a controlled trial of a behavior change intervention to promote hearing aid use. This study was a quasi-randomized controlled trial with two arms. A total of 160 first-time hearing aid users were recruited at their hearing aid fitting appointments. The control arm received standard care. In addition to standard care, the intervention arm received I-PLAN, which comprised (a) information about the consequences of hearing aid use/nonuse, (b) reminder prompt to use the hearing aids, and (c) an action plan. The primary outcome, measured at 6 weeks, was self-reported proportion of time the hearing aid was used in situations that caused hearing difficulty. Secondary outcomes were data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid benefit, self-regulation, and habit formation. The results showed that the proportion of time the hearing aids were used in situations that caused hearing difficulty was similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any outcome measure including data-logged hearing aid use. The relatively high levels of hearing aid use across research participants may have limited the potential for the intervention to impact on hearing aid use. Although the intervention materials proved acceptable and deliverable, future intervention trials should target suboptimal hearing aid users.

To investigate music appreciation in hearing aid (HA) users with varying levels of hearing loss (HL). Cross-sectional, within-subjects design. Tertiary medical center, community. Adults (≥18 yr) bilateral HA users. HA usage. Outcome variables included self-reported music enjoyment measures (pleasantness, musicality, naturalness) with and without HAs assessed with visual analogue scales (10 indicates highest level of enjoyment, 0 the least). Exposure variables include HL (better ear pure-tone average) and speech discrimination (word recognition scores [WRS]). Demographic information was collected. One hundred nine bilateral HA users completed the study. Mean (standard deviation) age was 66.6 years (16.8 yr); 52.3% were female patients. Mean (standard deviation) better ear pure-tone average was 51.1 dB (16.3 dB) HL. Increased severity of HL and worse WRS were associated with decreased music enjoyment ( p < 0.05) across all measures without HAs, adjusting for sex, age, education, race, HA type, age of HL diagnosis, duration of HL, duration of HA use, musical preference, and musical experience. However, these associations were attenuated or no longer significant with HA usage. Moreover, among all subjects, HAs (vs. no HAs) provided increased music enjoyment in pleasantness (HA, 6.94, no HA, 5.74; p < 0.01), musicality (HA, 7.35; no HA, 6.13, p < 0.01), and naturalness (HA, 6.75; no HA, 6.02; p = 0.02). HA users report increased music enjoyment with HAs compared with without HAs. Increased severity of HL and worse WRS were independently associated with decreased unaided music enjoyment. HA usage seems to mitigate this effect, particularly for those with worse HL.