scholarly journals A Comparative Study on Hearing Aid Benefits of Digital Hearing Aid Use (BTE) from Six Months to Two Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 224-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukeshwari Verma ◽  
Himanshu Sanju ◽  
Bibina Scaria ◽  
Mayank Awasthi ◽  
Aparna Ravichandran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Listening Skills ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Introduction For many reasons, it is important for audiologists and consumers to document improvement and benefit from amplification device at various stages of uses of amplification device. Professional are also interested to see the impact of amplification device on the consumer's auditory performance at different stages i.e. immediately after fitting and over several months of use. Objective The objective of the study was to measure the hearing aid benefit following 6 months – 1-year usage, 1 year – 1.5 yeaŕs usage, and 1.5 yeaŕs – 2 years' usage. Methods A total of 45 subjects participated in the study and were divided equally in three groups: hearing aid users from 6 months to 1 year, 1 year to 1.5 year, and 1.5 year to two years. All subjects responded to the Hearing Aid Benefit Questionnaire (63 questions), which assesses six domains of listening skills. Result Results showed the mean scores obtained were higher for all domains in the aided condition, as compared with unaided condition for all groups. Results also showed a significant improvement in the overall score between first-time users with hearing aid experience of six months to one year and hearing aid users using hearing aids for a period between 1.5 and 2 years. Conclusion It is possible to conclude that measuring the hearing aid benefit with the self-assessment questionnaires will assist the clinicians in making judgments about the areas in which a patient is experiencing more difficulty in everyday listening environment and in revising the possible technologies.

Hearing Specific and Generic Measures of the Psychosocial Impact of Hearing Aids

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. 238-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Jeffrey W. Jutai
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Psychosocial Impact ◽  
Assistive Devices ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
One Year ◽  
Generic Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Hearing-specific and generic measures of hearing aid outcome were examined in order (a) to determine their relative sensitivity to hearing aid use and (b) to examine the relationship between pre–hearing aid use expectations and post-use outcomes. Ninety-two hearing-impaired individuals completed some combination of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Expected Consequences of Hearing Aid Ownership (ECHO), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale, and provided reports of their daily and lifetime hearing aid use. In general, (a) the longer individuals wear hearing aids, the more positive the reported outcome, and (b) ECHO scores of non–hearing aid users are higher than SADL scores of new hearing aid users (six weeks to one year of use) but are similar to those obtained from experienced users (greater than one year of use). Between-questionnaire comparisons showed the generic measure to be as sensitive as the hearing aid specific measures. We suggest that generic measures have some advantages over hearing specific measures but that each has a place in the clinic.

An improvement in hearing sensitivity following hearing-aid fitting in a child with an apparent sensorineural hearing impairment

1996 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-365
Author(s):  
K. J. Munro ◽  
D. Cafarelli Dees
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Listening Skills ◽  
Subjective Test ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Impairment ◽  
Fitting In

AbstractThis case describes an apparent improvement in hearing sensitivity in a young girl over a period of 12 months, after she was fitted with binaural hearing-aids. Discrepancies between objective and subjective test results are highlighted. Even if the underlying reason for the conflicting test results was due to poor listening skills or test error, this child behaved like a hearing-impaired child and her performance improved after hearing-aid use. The case also illustrates the application of earphone testing from six months of age. The importance of closely monitoring all children who are fitted with hearing-aids is highlighted.

Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles

2002 ◽  
Vol 116 (S28) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Louise McDermott ◽  
Sunil N. Dutt ◽  
Elia Tziambazis ◽  
Andrew P. Reid ◽  
David W. Proops
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Patient Benefit ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
One Year ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

The Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid programme began in 1988 and by autumn 2000 a total of 351 patients had been fitted with such an aid. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hearing rehabilitation with the bone-anchored hearing aid. This was a prospective interview-based questionnaire study carried out in the autumn 2000. A total of 84 adult patients were interviewed. Each patient had worn their BAHA for more than one year.The questionnaire used during these interviews was the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP) and the Glasgow hearing aid difference profile (GHADP). This was first derived and validated by Gatehouse in 1999. The use of bone-anchored hearing aids was found to reduce the level of disability and handicap and provided the most patient benefit and satisfaction.

Hearing aids and tinnitus therapy: a 25-year experience

2008 ◽  
Vol 122 (10) ◽  
pp. 1052-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
M I Trotter ◽  
I Donaldson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
University Teaching ◽  
Digital Hearing Aids ◽  
Subjective Tinnitus ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Tinnitus Therapy ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectives:(1) To assess the subjective tinnitus perception of patients with audiologically proven hearing loss presenting to a tinnitus clinic, both before and after hearing aid provision; (2) to investigate subjective tinnitus perception in patients with unilateral and bilateral hearing loss; and (3) to assess the impact on tinnitus perception, if any, of a digital hearing aid programme in patients provided with hearing aids.Design:Prospective data collection for patients attending a tinnitus clinic over a 25-year period (1980–2004).Setting:University teaching hospital otolaryngology department.Participants:A total of 2153 consecutive patients attending a consultant-delivered specialist tinnitus clinic.Main outcomes measures:A visual analogue scale was used to assess the degree of tinnitus perception improvement, if any, comparing before versus after unilateral or bilateral aiding (in those with audiometrically proven hearing loss). A further assessment compared the effect of digital hearing aid programme introduction on symptomatic tinnitus perception in patients provided with unilateral or bilateral aids.Results:A total of 1440 patients were given hearing aids (826 unilateral and 614 bilateral). There was little difference in tinnitus perception, comparing overall aiding results in unilaterally or bilaterally aided patients. Overall, 554 (67 per cent) of unilaterally aided patients and 424 (69 per cent) of bilaterally aided patients reported some improvement in their tinnitus perception following aiding. There was a statistically significant improvement in tinnitus perception, comparing analogue aids with digital hearing aids, following introduction of a digital hearing aid programme in 2000, in both unilaterally (p < 0.001) and bilaterally (p < 0.001) aided patients.Conclusions:Provision of hearing aids in patients with audiometrically demonstrable hearing loss can play a very important part in tinnitus control. The additional improvement in tinnitus control observed following introduction of programmable digital aids had a summative effect in the management of these patients.

scholarly journals Response to Powell et al., “Do Hearing Aids Prevent Falls? Commentary on Study From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey”

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Kristal M. Riska ◽  
Sarah B. Peskoe ◽  
Alex Gordee ◽  
Maragatha Kuchibhatla ◽  
Sherri L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
National Health ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Nutrition Examination Survey ◽  
Falls Risk ◽  
Health And Nutrition ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This letter serves to respond to Powell et al.'s (2021) letter to the editor regarding our recent publication, "Preliminary Evidence on the Impact of Hearing Aid Use on Falls Risk in Individuals With Self-Reported Hearing Loss." In our letter, we respond to key concerns and commentary raised by the authors.

Speech-Recognition Performance after Long-Term Hearing Aid Use

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 292-303
Author(s):  
Janet E. Shanks ◽  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Patricia Stelmachowicz ◽  
Gene W. Bratt ◽  
David W. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Stimulus Level ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Noise Condition ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Larson et al (2000) reported the findings of a multicenter, NIDCD/VA clinical trial that compared hearing aid performance for three output limiting circuits in 360 adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The current study was undertaken to examine long-term hearing aid benefit in this same group of participants following five to six years of hearing aid use. The speech-recognition portion of the follow-up study enrolled 108 participants from the original study, 85% of whom were current hearing aid users and 15% of whom had not worn hearing aids during the past month (nonusers). Recognition performance in sound field on the NU-6 (quiet at 62 dB SPL) and the CST (quiet at 74 dB SPL and with -3 and 3 dB signal-to-babble ratios [S/B] at 62 and 74 dB SPL) was measured unaided and aided whenever possible. Speech-recognition abilities decreased significantly since the original study. Speech-recognition decrements were observed regardless of the speech materials (NU-6 and CST), test condition (quiet and noise), S/B (-3 and 3 dB), or stimulus level (62 and 74 dB SPL). Despite decreases in speech recognition, hearing aid benefit remained largely unchanged since the original study; aided performance exceeded unaided performance regardless of presentation level or noise condition. As in the original study, the relations among stimulus level, S/B, and speech-recognition performance were complex. Larson y col. (2000) reportaron los hallazgos de un estudio clínicos multicéntrico del NIDCD/VA que comparó el desempeño en el uso de auxiliares auditivos (AA) con tres circuitos de limitación de la salida, en 360 adultos con pérdida auditiva sensorineural simétrica. El estudio actual fue conducido para examinar el beneficio a largo plazo del AA en el mismo grupo de participantes, luego de cinco a seis años de utilización del AA. La porción de reconocimiento de lenguaje del estudio de seguimiento involucró a 108 participantes del estudio original, 85% de los cuáles eran actuales usuarios de AA y 15% que no habían usado AA durante el mes anterior (no usuarios). El desempeño en reconocimiento del lenguaje en campo sonoro con el NU-6 (en silencio a 62 dB SPL) y con el CST (en silencio a 74 dB SPL, y con tasas de señal/balbuceo de -3 y +3 dB [S&B] a 62 y 74 dB SPL), fue medido con y sin amplificación cuando resultó posible. Las habilidades de reconocimiento del lenguaje habían disminuido significativamente desde el estudio original. Se observó reducción en el reconocimiento del lenguaje independientemente del material logoaudiométrico (NU-6 y CST), las condiciones de la prueba (en silencio o en ruido), S/B (-3 y +3 dB), o la intensidad del estímulo (62 y 74 dB SPL). A pesar de la disminución en el reconocimiento del lenguaje, el beneficio del AA permaneció sin cambios en relación al estudio original; el desempeño con amplificación superó el desempeño sin amplificación sin importar la intensidad de la presentación o las condiciones de ruido. Al igual que en el estudio original, las relaciones entre el nivel de estímulo, la S/B y el desempeño en el reconocimiento de lenguaje fueron complejas.

Changes in Hearing-Aid Benefit Following 1 or 2 Years of Hearing-Aid Use by Older Adults

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow ◽  
Carolyn Garner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid benefit measures obtained from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers during the first year of hearing-aid usage. Benefit measures were obtained after 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year of hearing-aid use by all participants. In addition, follow-up measurements of hearing-aid benefit were performed on 49 of these same hearing-aid wearers following 2 years of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids that used linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Benefit measures included several objective tests of speech recognition, as well as the subjective self-report scales of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Hepler) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Although group means changed only slightly over time for all of the benefit measures, significant differences were observed for some of the benefit measures, especially among the subjective, self-report measures of benefit. In almost all of the cases exhibiting significant changes, performance was significantly worse (less benefit) at both the 6-month and 1-year post-fit interval compared to the measurements at 1 month post-fit. In general, the individual data from the 134 participants who were represented in the 1-year data set were consistent with the trends in the group data described above. Regarding longer term changes in benefit following 2 years of hearing-aid use, minimal changes were again observed. In all, there was little evidence for acclimatization of hearing-aid benefit in this study in either the group or the individual data.

scholarly journals The Impact of Senior Mobility Funding on Hearing Aid Acquisition and Compliance to Hearing Aid Use in a Singapore Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Kenneth Chua Wei De
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Assistive Devices ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Actual Degree ◽  
Data Log ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Specialist Outpatient Clinic

Background and Objectives: In 2013, the Singapore government reviewed and expanded the Senior Mobility Fund (SMF) to provide subsidy for assistive devices, including hearing aids (HA). While SMF has improved accessibility to HA, its impact on HA acquisition has not been determined. The study aims to elucidate the influence of SMF on HA acquisition and the relationship between financial funding and compliance to HA use.Subjects and Methods: Retrospective review of 643 patients seen between January 2017 to January 2018 at the earnose and throat specialist outpatient clinic, who were referred for a hearing aid evaluation. Of the 643 patients, 109 patients with baseline hearing handicap (HH) scores recorded, and no formal diagnosis of cognitive impairment were included. The patients were grouped according to SMF eligibility and clinical data were obtained.Results: The odds ratio for acquiring HA was significantly higher with SMF, regardless of HH scores. When looking at actual degree of hearing loss (DHL), HA uptake was significantly higher in the least severe of DHL categories. There is no relationship between SMF and compliance to HA use. However, HH score is positively correlated with data log in regression analyses.Conclusions: SMF appears to influence HA acquisition. Especially in financially funded patients with low self-perceived HH, the benefits of HA may be underappreciated given the few hours of HA use. Further studies are warranted to investigate the impact of financial funding on outcomes of HA users to help policy planners and clinicians be prudent in the utilization of SMF.

scholarly journals An exploratory study identifying a possible response shift phenomena of the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Arthur ◽  
Tessa Watts ◽  
Ruth Davies ◽  
Vinaya Manchaiah ◽  
Julie Slater
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Psychological Impact ◽  
Response Shift ◽  
Test Technique ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Shift Effect ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

A then-test technique was used to investigate the possibility of a response shift in the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP). Following completion of part 1 of the GHABP, 16 adults were invited for hearing-aid follow up appointments. In accordance with then-test technique, participants were asked to think back to before they had their hearing-aids fitted and the GHABP part 1 was completed again to re-establish the disability and handicap scores. These scores were then compared with the initial GHABP part I scores. Paired T testing and Wilcoxon Rank tests were carried out to investigate the statistical significance of the response shift effect. Statistically significant differences were seen between initial and retrospective GHABP (disability) scores using t test. No significant differences could be seen between the initial and retrospective handicap scores. Results suggest participants may have demonstrated a possible response shift phenomenon with the disability construct of the GHABP questionnaire, related to a possible re-calibration effect or a denial of disability effect. This exploratory study suggests that the GHABP questionnaire may be subject to a response shift phenomena. We suggest that further more robust studies are completed to verify this and recommend that this could have psychological impact on participants when explaining the results of the outcome measure and may affect hearing aid use. There is also potential for this phenomenon to affect global GHABP scores specifically when demonstrating to stakeholders the overall success of an audiology service.

Normative Data for the Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 637-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Kathleen M. Cienkowski ◽  
Anna Forsline ◽  
Stephen Fausti
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Patient Attitudes ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Negative Coping ◽  
Loss Of Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Investigations have shown that patient attitudes toward hearing loss and hearing aids impact self-reported handicap and disability, hearing aid benefit, and hearing aid use. The Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire (ALHQ) was developed by Saunders and Cienkowski (1996) to examine some of the psychosocial factors underlying the use and acquisition of hearing aids. Here we report data from a new version of questionnaire (ALHQ v2.1), which examines attitudes towards hearing loss and hearing aids on five scales: Denial of Hearing Loss, Negative Associations, Negative Coping Strategies, Manual Dexterity and Vision, and Hearing-Related Esteem. Reliability values, internal consistency values, and cut points for typical and atypical scores are provided, along with comparison of the scores of women, men, current hearing aid users, non–hearing aid users, and paying versus nonpaying individuals. The ALHQ takes about ten minutes to complete and identifies for the clinician some of the issues that might jeopardize successful hearing aid outcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document