scholarly journals Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Ted A. Meyer ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

Objective and Subjective Outcomes in Patients with Hearing Aids: A Cross-Sectional, Comparative, Associational Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Xunyi Wang ◽  
Yun Zheng ◽  
Gang Li ◽  
Jingzhe Lu ◽  
Yan Yin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Objective Tests ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Outcome assessment for hearing aids (HAs) is an essential part of HA fitting and validation. There is no consensus about the best or standard approach for evaluating HA outcomes. And, the relationship between objective and subjective measures is ambiguous. This study aimed to determine the outcomes after HA fitting, explore correlations between subjective benefit and acoustic gain improvement as well as objective audiologic tests, and investigate several variables that may improve patients’ perceived benefits. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Eighty adults with bilateral symmetrical hearing loss using HAs for at least 1 month were included in this study. All subjects completed the pure tone average (PTA) threshold and word recognition score (WRS) tests in unaided and aided conditions. We also administered the Chinese version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), to measure participants’ subjective benefits. Objective HA benefit (acoustic gain improvement) was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between aided and unaided conditions indicated with ΔPTA and ΔWRS. Thus, patients’ baseline hearing levels were taken into account. Correlations were assessed among objective audiologic tests (PTA and WRS), acoustic gain improvement (ΔPTA and ΔWRS), multiple potential factors, and IOI-HA overall scores. <b><i>Results:</i></b> PTA decreased significantly, but WRS did not increase when aided listening was compared to unaided listening. Negative correlations between PTAs and IOI-HA scores were significant but weak (<i>r</i> = −0.370 and <i>r</i> = −0.393, all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). Significant weak positive correlations were found between WRSs and IOI-HA (<i>r</i> = 0.386 and <i>r</i> = 0.309, all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). However, there was no correlation among ΔPTA, ΔWRS, and IOI-HA (<i>r</i> = 0.056 and <i>r</i> = −0.086, all <i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05). Moreover, 2 nonaudiological factors (age and daily use time) were significantly correlated with IOI-HA (<i>r</i> = −0.269 and <i>r</i> = 0.242, all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Correlations among objective audiologic tests, acoustic gain, and subjective patient-reported outcomes were weak or absent. Subjective questionnaires and objective tests do not reflect the same hearing capability. Therefore, it is advisable to evaluate both objective and subjective outcomes when analyzing HA benefits on a regular basis and pay equal attention to nonaudiological and audiological factors.

scholarly journals The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Mariya Yu. Boboshko ◽  
Irina P. Berdnikova ◽  
Natalya V. Maltzeva
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives -to determine the normative data of sentence speech intelligibility in a free sound field and to estimate the applicability of the Russian Matrix Sentence test (RuMatrix) for assessment of the hearing aid fitting benefit. Material and methods. 10 people with normal hearing and 28 users of hearing aids with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were involved in the study. RuMatrix test both in quiet and in noise was performed in a free sound field. All patients filled in the COSI questionnaire. Results. The hearing impaired patients were divided into two subgroups: the 1st with high and the 2nd with low hearing aid benefit, according to the COSI questionnaire. In the 1st subgroup, the threshold for the sentence intelligibility in quiet was 34.9 ± 6.4 dB SPL, and in noise -3.3 ± 1.4 dB SNR, in the 2nd subgroup 41.7 ± 11.5 dB SPL and 0.15 ± 3.45 dB SNR, respectively. The significant difference between the data of both subgroups and the norm was registered (p

Initial-Fit Approach Versus Verified Prescription: Comparing Self-Perceived Hearing Aid Benefit

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 768-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm ◽  
Megan McManus ◽  
Rachel McArdle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Fitting Method ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Perceived Benefit ◽  
Eta Squared ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. Purpose: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. Research Design: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. Study Sample: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. Intervention: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4–6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4–6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. Data Collection and Analysis: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was “preferred.” The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. Conclusions: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

Hearing Aid Efficiency in a Competing Speech Situation

1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 789-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom W. Tillman ◽  
Raymond Carhart ◽  
Wayne O. Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Chamber ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Sensation Level ◽  
Conductive Loss ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Competing Speech

Discrimination for monosyllabic words heard against competing sentences was measured at the same sensation level during unaided and aided listening using four types of subject: normal hearers, conductive loss cases, nonpresbycusic sensorineurals, and presbycusics. There were 12 subjects per group. Listening against competing sentences was binaural, monaural direct, and monaural indirect at nominal primary-to-secondary ratios of +18 and +6 dB. Unaided measures, including SRT and monosyllabic discrimination, were obtained by sound field testing conditions; aided measures were obtained with the subject in a separate room wearing the hearing aid receiver and earmold while the hearing aids were mounted on an artificial head placed in the sound field test chamber. The aided measures were obtained at two sound field levels (70 dB and 60 dB SPL) and at two gain settings (50 dB and 40 dB). The main findings were (1) that the hearing-impaired required more of an increase in SPL, re performance in the sound field, to achieve spondee threshold via the hearing aid than can be accounted for by the difference in methodology alone, (2) that intelligibility of monosyllabic words in quiet was somewhat poorer during aided listening than during unaided listening even though sensation level was held constant, (3) that subjects with presbycusis and other sensorineural losses were less resistant to masking by competing sentences during unaided listening than were subjects with normal hearing or with conductive loss, and (4) that all groups exhibited reduced intelligibility for a constant sensation level. This last effect was particularly severe for patients with presbycusic and other sensorineural hearing loss. The practical implications of these findings are discussed.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Comparison of In-the-Ear and Over-the-Ear Hearing Aid Fittings

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Risberg ◽  
Robyn M. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
The Relationship

A custom in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid fitting was compared to two over-the-ear (OTE) hearing aid fittings for each of 9 subjects with mild to moderately severe hearing losses. Speech intelligibility via the three instruments was compared using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test. The relationship between functional gain and coupler gain was compared for the ITE and the higher rated OTE instruments. The difference in input received at the microphone locations of the two types of hearing aids was measured for 10 different subjects and compared to the functional gain data. It was concluded that (a) for persons with mild to moderately severe hearing losses, appropriately adjusted custom ITE fittings typically yield speech intelligibility that is equal to the better OTE fitting identified in a comparative evaluation; and (b) gain prescriptions for ITE hearing aids should be adjusted to account for the high-frequency emphasis associated with in-the-concha microphone placement.

Modified Earpieces and CROS for High Frequency Hearing Losses

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dodds ◽  
Earl Harford
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Intensity Level ◽  
Test Results ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Increased Sensitivity ◽  
Difficult Cases

Persons with a high frequency hearing loss are difficult cases for whom to find suitable amplification. We have experienced some success with this problem in our Hearing Clinics using a specially designed earmold with a hearing aid. Thirty-five cases with high frequency hearing losses were selected from our clinical files for analysis of test results using standard, vented, and open earpieces. A statistical analysis of test results revealed that PB scores in sound field, using an average conversational intensity level (70 dB SPL), were enhanced when utilizing any one of the three earmolds. This result was due undoubtedly to increased sensitivity provided by the hearing aid. Only the open earmold used with a CROS hearing aid resulted in a significant improvement in discrimination when compared with the group’s unaided PB score under earphones or when comparing inter-earmold scores. These findings suggest that the inclusion of the open earmold with a CROS aid in the audiologist’s armamentarium should increase his flexibility in selecting hearing aids for persons with a high frequency hearing loss.

scholarly journals Scope and heterogeneity of outcomes reported in randomized trials in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karine E Manera ◽  
David W Johnson ◽  
Yeoungjee Cho ◽  
Benedicte Sautenet ◽  
Jenny Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Inform Decision Making ◽  
Solute Clearance

Abstract Background Randomized trials can provide evidence to inform decision-making but this may be limited if the outcomes of importance to patients and clinicians are omitted or reported inconsistently. We aimed to assess the scope and heterogeneity of outcomes reported in trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register for randomized trials in PD. We extracted all reported outcome domains and measurements and analyzed their frequency and characteristics. Results From 128 reports of 120 included trials, 80 different outcome domains were reported. Overall, 39 (49%) domains were surrogate, 23 (29%) patient-reported and 18 (22%) clinical. The five most commonly reported domains were PD-related infection [59 (49%) trials], dialysis solute clearance [51 (42%)], kidney function [45 (38%)], protein metabolism [44 (37%)] and inflammatory markers/oxidative stress [42 (35%)]. Quality of life was reported infrequently (4% of trials). Only 14 (12%) trials included a patient-reported outcome as a primary outcome. The median number of outcome measures (defined as a different measurement, aggregation and metric) was 22 (interquartile range 13–37) per trial. PD-related infection was the most frequently reported clinical outcome as well as the most frequently stated primary outcome. A total of 383 different measures for infection were used, with 66 used more than once. Conclusions Trials in PD include important clinical outcomes such as infection, but these are measured and reported inconsistently. Patient-reported outcomes are infrequently reported and nearly half of the domains were surrogate. Standardized outcomes for PD trials are required to improve efficiency and relevance.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

scholarly journals Strain Elastography and Tendon Response to an Exercise Program in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinopathy: An Exploratory Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596712096518
Author(s):  
Karen Brage ◽  
Birgit Juul-Kristensen ◽  
John Hjarbaek ◽  
Eleanor Boyle ◽  
Per Kjaer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Supraspinatus Tendon ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Tendon Stiffness ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Tendon Thickness

Background: Shoulder pain is common, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 67%. Evidence is conflicting in relation to imaging findings and pain in the shoulder. Sonoelastography can be used to estimate tissue stiffness and may be a clinically relevant technique for diagnosing and monitoring tendon healing. Purpose: To evaluate changes in supraspinatus tendon stiffness using strain elastography (SEL) and associations with changes in patient-reported outcomes, supraspinatus tendon thickness, and grade of tendinopathy after 12 weeks of unilateral shoulder exercises in patients with supraspinatus tendinopathy. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 23 patients with unilateral clinical supraspinatus tendinopathy performed 12 weeks of “standard care” exercises. At baseline and follow-up, supraspinatus tendon stiffness was measured bilaterally using SEL and compared with tendinopathy grading on magnetic resonance imaging scans and tendon thickness measured using conventional ultrasound. Patient-reported outcome measures included physical function and symptoms from the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and pain rating (visual analog scale). Results: No significant changes in SEL within or between groups (asymptomatic vs symptomatic tendon) were seen. All patient-reported outcomes showed significant improvement from baseline to follow-up, but with no change in tendinopathy grading and tendon thickness. No significant differences in the proportion of patients changing above the minimal detectable change in SEL and PROM were seen, except for discomfort while sleeping. Conclusion: Despite no significant within-group or between-group changes in SEL, significant improvements were found in patient-reported outcomes. An acceptable agreement between patients changing above the minimal detectable change in SEL and patient-reported outcome measure was seen. Further studies should explore the use of SEL to detect changes after tendon repair and long-term training potentially in subgroups of different tendinopathy phases. Clinical Relevance: In the short term, structural changes in supraspinatus tendons could not be visualized using SEL, indicating that a longer time span should be expected in order to observe structural changes, which should be considered before return to sports. Subgrouping based on stage of tendinopathy may also be important in order to evaluate changes over time with SEL among patients with supraspinatus tendinopathy. Registration: NCT03425357 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document