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

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.

Download Full-text

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

International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology ◽

10.1055/s-0036-1592117 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 21 (03) ◽

pp. 224-231 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology ◽

10.3766/jaaa.15.3.6 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 15 (03) ◽

pp. 238-248 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

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.

Download Full-text

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

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2018_aja-18-0130 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (2) ◽

pp. 274-284 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

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.

Download Full-text

An approach to bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid surgery in children: contralateral placement of sleeper fixture

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology ◽

10.1017/s0022215108003952 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 123 (5) ◽

pp. 555-557 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

J M Bernstein ◽

P Z Sheehan

Keyword(s):

Hearing Loss ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Conductive Hearing Loss ◽

Hearing Aid ◽

Contralateral Side ◽

Two Stage ◽

Calvarial Bone ◽

Optimal Position ◽

Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽

Conductive Hearing

AbstractObjective:Bone-anchored hearing aid surgery in younger children is a two-stage procedure, with a titanium fixture being allowed to osseointegrate for several months before an abutment is fitted through a skin graft. In the first procedure, it has been usual to place a reserve or sleeper fixture approximately 5 mm from the primary fixture as a backup in case the primary fixture fails to osseointegrate. This ipsilateral sleeper fixture is expensive, is often not used, and is placed in thinner calvarial bone where it is less likely to osseointegrate successfully. The authors have implanted the sleeper fixture on the contralateral side, with the additional objective of reducing the number of procedures for bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid implantation, providing a cost-effective use for the sleeper.Methods:The authors implanted the bone-anchored hearing aid sleeper fixture in the contralateral temporal bone instead of on the ipsilateral side in seven successive paediatric cases with bilateral conductive hearing loss requiring two-stage bone-anchored hearing aids, treated at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, UK.Results:The seven patients ranged in age from five to 15 years, with a mean age of 10 years; in addition, a 20-year-old with learning disability was also treated. In each case, the contralateral sleeper fixture was not needed as a backup fixture, but was used in four patients (57 per cent) as the basis for a second-side bone-anchored hearing aid.Conclusions:In children with bilateral conductive hearing loss, in whom a bilateral bone-anchored hearing aid is being considered and the second side is to be operated upon at a later date, we recommend placing the sleeper fixture on the contralateral side at the time of primary first-side surgery. Our technique provides a sleeper fixture located in an optimal position, where it also offers the option of use for a second-side bone-anchored hearing aid and reduces the number of procedures needed.

Download Full-text

Gender Differences in Audiological Findings and Hearing Aid Benefit in 255 Individuals with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder: A Retrospective Study

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology ◽

10.3766/jaaa.15145 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 27 (10) ◽

pp. 839-845 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Vijaya Kumar Narne ◽

Prashanth Prabhu ◽

Hunsur S. Chandan ◽

Mahadeva Deepthi

Keyword(s):

Gender Differences ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Otoacoustic Emissions ◽

Hearing Aid ◽

Auditory Neuropathy ◽

Spectrum Disorder ◽

Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽

Acoustic Reflexes ◽

Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: There are many studies reported in the literature that have summarized audiological findings and possible rehabilitation in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). However, there are very few studies that have attempted to delineate the gender differences in audiological characteristics and hearing aid benefit in individuals with ANSD. Purpose: The study aimed to explore the differences between males and females in terms of demographic details, audiogram, speech identification scores, otoacoustic emissions, acoustic reflexes, long latency responses, and hearing aid benefit. Research Design: A retrospective study. Study Sample: A total of 255 individuals diagnosed with ANSD were selected for the study. The study included 137 females and 88 males. Data Collection and Analysis: The demographic details, results of diagnostic audiological testing, and hearing aid benefit were analyzed retrospectively. The differences in findings across gender were compared. Results: The study shows that females have a relatively higher degree of hearing loss and that the majority of females show a rising type of audiometric configuration. The study shows that females have poorer speech perception abilities and experience limited benefits from hearing aids compared to males. Conclusions: The results of the study show that there are gender differences in audiological findings and hearing aid benefits in individuals with ANSD. However, well-controlled prospective studies are essential to confirm the results obtained and to identify the possible mechanisms underlying the gender differences.

Download Full-text

The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

Science and Innovations in Medicine ◽

10.35693/2500-1388-2020-5-1-36-39 ◽

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

Download Full-text

The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: surgical methods and complications

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology ◽

10.1017/s0022215100136217 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 110 (21) ◽

pp. 7-12 ◽

Cited By ~ 54

Author(s):

David W. Proops

Keyword(s):

Soft Tissue ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Hearing Aid ◽

Surgical Method ◽

Surgical Methods ◽

Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractSince 1988, 309 patients have been referred to the Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme for assessment. One hundred and eighty-eight have been fitted with bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA). Of these 169 have been fitted with a BAHA alone and 20 with a BAHA and auricular prosthesis(es).Only four (2.1 per cent) are not wearing their BAHAs. Three cases because the hearing had continued to deteriorate and in one case because of repeated failure to integrate. Nineteen patients (10.1 per cent) have lost fixtures but all but one of these have been successfully reimplanted. Of these 19 patients 10 (52.6 per cent) were syndromal and 10 (52.6 per cent) were under 16 years of age.A surgical method has been evolved both to cope with predictable failure of integration and soft tissue control.

Download Full-text

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

Audiology and Neurotology ◽

10.1159/000506666 ◽

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.

Download Full-text