Motivational Interviewing as an Adjunct to Hearing Rehabilitation for Patients with Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (08) ◽  
pp. 669-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Zarenoe ◽  
Lena Lindhe Söderlund ◽  
Gerhard Andersson ◽  
Torbjörn Ledin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Motivational Interviewing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Purpose: To test the effects of a brief motivational interviewing (MI) program as an adjunct to hearing aid rehabilitation for patients with tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: This was a pilot randomized controlled trial. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 50 patients aged between 40 and 82 yr with both tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss and a pure-tone average (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) < 70 dB HL. All patients were first-time hearing aid users. Intervention: A brief MI program was used during hearing aid fitting in 25 patients, whereas the remainder received standard practice (SP), with conventional hearing rehabilitation. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 46 patients (N = 23 + 23) with tinnitus were included for further analysis. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) were administered before and after rehabilitation. THI was used to investigate changes in tinnitus annoyance, and the IOI-HA was used to determine the effect of hearing aid treatment. Results: Self-reported tinnitus disability (THI) decreased significantly in the MI group (p < 0.001) and in the SP group (p < 0.006). However, there was greater improvement in the MI group (p < 0.013). Furthermore, the findings showed a significant improvement in patients’ satisfaction concerning the hearing aids (IOI-HA, within both groups; MI group, p < 0.038; and SP group, p < 0.026), with no difference between the groups (p < 0.99). Conclusion: Tinnitus handicap scores decrease to a greater extent following brief MI than following SP. Future research on the value of incorporating MI into audiological rehabilitation using randomized controlled designs is required.

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Hearing Aid Use and Auditory Training on Cognition, Depressive Symptoms, and Social Interaction in Adults With Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Crossover Trial (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Denny Meyer ◽  
Peter J Blamey ◽  
Andrew Pipingas ◽  
Sunil Bhar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

BACKGROUND Sensorineural hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit among older adults. Some of the psychosocial consequences of this condition include difficulty in understanding speech, depression, and social isolation. Studies have shown that older adults with hearing loss show some age-related cognitive decline. Hearing aids have been proven as successful interventions to alleviate sensorineural hearing loss. In addition to hearing aid use, the positive effects of auditory training—formal listening activities designed to optimize speech perception—are now being documented among adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids, especially new hearing aid users. Auditory training has also been shown to produce prolonged cognitive performance improvements. However, there is still little evidence to support the benefits of simultaneous hearing aid use and individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognitive performance in adults with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE This study will investigate whether using hearing aids for the first time will improve the impact of individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognition, depression, and social interaction for adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The rationale for this study is based on the hypothesis that, in adults with sensorineural hearing loss, using hearing aids for the first time in combination with individualized face-to-face auditory training will be more effective for improving cognition, depressive symptoms, and social interaction rather than auditory training on its own. METHODS This is a crossover trial targeting 40 men and women between 50 and 90 years of age with either mild or moderate symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Consented, willing participants will be recruited from either an independent living accommodation or via a community database to undergo a 6-month intensive face-to-face auditory training program (active control). Participants will be assigned in random order to receive hearing aid (intervention) for either the first 3 or last 3 months of the 6-month auditory training program. Each participant will be tested at baseline, 3, and 6 months using a neuropsychological battery of computer-based cognitive assessments, together with a depression symptom instrument and a social interaction measure. The primary outcome will be cognitive performance with regard to spatial working memory. Secondary outcome measures include other cognition performance measures, depressive symptoms, social interaction, and hearing satisfaction. RESULTS Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in June 2018. CONCLUSIONS Results from the study will inform strategies for aural rehabilitation, hearing aid delivery, and future hearing loss intervention trials. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03112850; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03112850 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xz12fD0B).

Evaluation of Hardwire Personal Assistive Listening Devices

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dempsey ◽  
Mark Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Subjective Evaluations ◽  
Potential Benefits

A large number of personal amplifiers have recently become available commercially. These devices have not been classified as hearing aids by the FDA and are therefore not subject to the FDA rules and regulations governing the sales of hearing aid devices. In this investigation, several of these personal amplifiers were evaluated to determine potential benefits and problems for each device. The devices were evaluated electroacoustically and, also, subjectively by a group of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The results of the electroacoustic evaluation revealed very sharply peaked frequency responses. The subjective evaluations revealed tremendous variability, with some preferences for power and low-frequency amplification. Clinical implications of these results and suggestions for further research are provided.

Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Siau ◽  
B Dhillon ◽  
R Andrews ◽  
K M J Green
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Uptake Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Sensorineural Deafness ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractObjectives:This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients.Methods:A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed.Results:In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device.Conclusion:The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.

scholarly journals Analysis of the results of hearing aids fitting using the questionnaire «Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile»

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
L. E. Golooanooa ◽  
E. V. Zhiunskaya ◽  
M. . Yu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

164 patients with moderate to severe ehronie bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were asked to fill in the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile. Its usefulness was showed in eases of diffieult hearing aid fitting.

Prescriptive Amplification Recommendations for Hearing Losses with a Conductive Component and Their Impact on the Required Maximum Power Output: An Update with Accompanying Clinical Explanation

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (06) ◽  
pp. 452-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl E. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Compression Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Maximum Power Output ◽  
Conductive Component

Background: Hearing aid prescriptive recommendations for hearing losses having a conductive component have received less clinical and research interest than for losses of a sensorineural nature; as a result, much variation remains among current prescriptive methods in their recommendations for conductive and mixed hearing losses (Johnson and Dillon, 2011). Purpose: The primary intent of this brief clinical note is to demonstrate differences between two algebraically equivalent expressions of hearing loss, which have been approaches used historically to generate a prescription for hearing losses with a conductive component. When air and bone conduction thresholds are entered into hearing aid prescriptions designed for nonlinear hearing aids, it was hypothesized that that two expressions would not yield equivalent amounts of prescribed insertion gain and output. These differences are examined for their impact on the maximum power output (MPO) requirements of the hearing aid. Subsequently, the MPO capabilities of two common behind-the-ear (BTE) receiver placement alternatives, receiver-in-aid (RIA) and receiver-in-canal (RIC), are examined. Study Samples: The two expressions of hearing losses examined were the 25% ABG + AC approach and the 75% ABG + BC approach, where ABG refers to air-bone gap, AC refers to air-conduction threshold, and BC refers to bone-conduction threshold. Example hearing loss cases with a conductive component are sampled for calculations. The MPO capabilities of the BTE receiver placements in commercially-available products were obtained from hearing aids on the U.S. federal purchasing contract. Results: Prescribed gain and the required MPO differs markedly between the two approaches. The 75% ABG + BC approach prescribes a compression ratio that is reflective of the amount of sensorineural hearing loss. Not all hearing aids will have the MPO capabilities to support the output requirements for fitting hearing losses with a large conductive component particularly when combined with significant sensorineural hearing loss. Generally, current RIA BTE products have greater output capabilities than RIC BTE products. Conclusions: The 75% ABG + BC approach is more appropriate than the 25% ABG + AC approach because the latter approach inappropriately uses AC thresholds as the basis for determining the compression ratio. That is, for hearing losses with a conductive component, the AC thresholds are not a measure of sensorineural hearing loss and cannot serve as the basis for determining the amount of desired compression. The Australian National Acoustic Laboratories has been using the 75% ABG + BC approach in lieu of the 25% ABG + AC approach since its release of the National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 1 (NAL-NL1) prescriptive method in 1999. Future research may examine whether individuals with conductive hearing loss benefit or prefer more than 75% restoration of the conductive component provided adequate MPO capabilities to support such restoration.

scholarly journals Hearing Aids as a Treatment for Tinnitus Patients with Slight to Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (02) ◽  
pp. 123-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Johnson ◽  
Johnathan Baldwin ◽  
Kristen Barton ◽  
Caitlyn Mathews ◽  
Jeffrey Danhauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Stepwise Logistic Regression ◽  
Tinnitus Severity ◽  
Point Increase

AbstractPersons with clinically significant tinnitus also may have mild sensorineural hearing loss (MSNHL). The purpose of this study was to describe patients with tinnitus and MSNHL and factors predicting hearing-aid uptake (HAU). We conducted a retrospective chart review with regression modeling of patients presenting to a specialty tinnitus clinic over a 2.5-year period. Stepwise logistic regression on data from patient charts was conducted. Of 133 patients seen, two-thirds had MSNHL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.9–75.0; mean age = 53.4 years; standard deviation = 14.5); approximately 50% had severe-to-catastrophic tinnitus. Logistic regression indicated that four-frequency pure-tone average (FFPTA; left) (β = 0.3899, χ 2 = 10.96, degrees of freedom [DF] = 1, p = 0.0009) and age (β = 0.1273, χ 2 = 4.86, DF = 1, p = 0.0274) were positively associated with HAU; tinnitus severity was inversely related (β = − 1.0533, χ 2 = 4.24, DF = 1, p = 0.0395). Adjusting for key variables, odds of receiving hearing aids was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.27) times higher with every year increase in age, 1.48 (95% CI: 1.17–1.86) times higher per one point increase in FFPTA (left), and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.13–0.95) times less per one point increase in tinnitus severity score. Reasons why HAU was not high for this special sample of young adults with severe tinnitus and MSNHL are discussed; hearing aid treatment requires extensive counseling and follow-up for this population.

Temporary Increase in Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Hearing Aid Use

1979 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Patricia Heffernan ◽  
Marsha R. Simons
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Temporary Increase ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Power Outputs

Two cases are presented exhibiting temporary increases in sensorineural hearing loss following hearing aid use. Data suggesting this correlation are shown. There were no contributing middle ear problems during the period surveyed. The most significant changes in hearing thresholds were at frequencies 1000 and 2000 Hz. The use of different hearing aids, with decreased maximum power outputs, was not found to have similar effects on hearing threshold levels. A scheduling regime is recommended for introducing any new hearing aid to a child.

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Use in Older Adults With Postlingual Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew E Hughes ◽  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Hamish Innes-Brown ◽  
Susan L Rossell ◽  
David Sly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Training Centre ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

BACKGROUND Older adults with postlingual sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) exhibit a poor prognosis that not only includes impaired auditory function but also rapid cognitive decline, especially speech-related cognition, in addition to psychosocial dysfunction and an increased risk of dementia. Consistent with this prognosis, individuals with SNHL exhibit global atrophic brain alteration as well as altered neural function and regional brain organization within the cortical substrates that underlie auditory and speech processing. Recent evidence suggests that the use of hearing aids might ameliorate this prognosis. OBJECTIVE The objective was to study the effects of a hearing aid use intervention on neurocognitive and psychosocial functioning in individuals with SNHL aged ≥55 years. METHODS All aspects of this study will be conducted at Swinburne University of Technology (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia). We will recruit 2 groups (n=30 per group) of individuals with mild to moderate SNHL from both the community and audiology health clinics (Alison Hennessy Audiology, Chelsea Hearing Pty Ltd). These groups will include individuals who have worn a hearing aid for, at least, 12 months or never worn a hearing aid. All participants would be asked to complete, at 2 time points (t) including baseline (t=0) and follow-up (t=6 months), tests of hearing and psychosocial and cognitive function and attend a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) session. The MRI session will include both structural and functional MRI (sMRI and fMRI) scans, the latter involving the performance of a novel speech processing task. RESULTS This research is funded by the Barbara Dicker Brain Sciences Foundation Grants, the Australian Research Council, Alison Hennessy Audiology, and Chelsea Hearing Pty Ltd under the Industry Transformation Training Centre Scheme (ARC Project #IC140100023). We obtained the ethics approval on November 18, 2017 (Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee protocol number SHR Project 2017/266). The recruitment began in December 2017 and will be completed by December 2020. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to assess the effect hearing aid use has on neural, cognitive, and psychosocial factors in individuals with SNHL who have never used hearing aids. Furthermore, this study is expected to clarify the relationships among altered brain structure and function, psychosocial factors, and cognition in response to the hearing aid use. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617001616369; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12617001616369 (Accessed by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70yatZ9ze) INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR1-10.2196/9916

Hearing Aid Benefit in Patients with Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (04) ◽  
pp. 293-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole E. Johnson ◽  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Blakely B. Ellis ◽  
Anna Marie Jilla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Medium Effect

Background: Untreated sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is associated with chronic health-care conditions, isolation, loneliness, and reduced quality of life. Although hearing aids can minimize the negative effects of SNHL, only about one in five persons with SNHL seeks help for communication problems. Many persons wait 10 yr or more from the time they first notice a problem before pursuing amplification. Further, little information about the benefits of amplification is available for persons with mild SNHL (MSNHL), who likely defer treatment even longer. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review to weigh the evidence regarding benefits derived from the use of amplification by adults with MSNHL. Research Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Study Sample: Adult hearing aid wearers with bilateral average pure-tone thresholds ≤45 dB HL at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. Data Collection and Analysis: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied-Health Literature, Cochrane Collaboration, and Google Scholar were searched independently by the authors during September 2013. The authors used a consensus approach to assess the quality and extract data for the meta-analysis. Results: Of 106 articles recovered for full-text review, only 10 met inclusion criteria (at least Level IV of evidence and involved and reported separate pre-/postfitting hearing aid outcomes for patients with MSNHL). Included studies involved mainly middle-aged to elderly patients using hearing aids of various styles and circuitry. Results from all of the studies indicated positive benefits from amplification for patients with MSNHL. Data from five studies were suitable for a meta-analysis, which produced a small-to-medium effect size of 0.85 (95% confidence intervals = 0.44–1.25) after adjusting for a small publication bias. This evidence confirmed benefits from the use of amplification in adults with MSNHL. Conclusions: Evidence exists supporting the notion that adults with MSNHL benefit from hearing aids. This information is important and useful to audiologists, patients, and third-party payers, even considering that most of the studies in this systematic review were limited, somewhat dated, and used analog and early digital technology available when the studies were conducted. Clinical recommendations may be even stronger as future studies become available for patients fit with modern styles and high-technology hearing aids.

HBO2 for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

2020 ◽  
pp. 271-295
Author(s):  
Tracy Leigh LeGros ◽  
Heather Murphy-Lavoie ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Organ Of Corti ◽  
Abrupt Onset ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) presents as an abrupt onset of hearing loss; 88% of these presentations are idiopathic (ISSHL). Many mechanisms of injury and etiopathologies have been postulated, but they share a common result – hypoxia of the organ of Corti leading to hair cell-cilia fusion, synaptic, dendritic swelling and sustained depolarization. Of all of the various treatments tried, only corticosteroids and hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy have shown benefit in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This paper reviews the pathophysiology of SSNHL, the variety of treatments studied, and the best evidence (both retrospective case controlled and prospective randomized controlled studies) for the use of HBO2 and corticosteroids. The best results are obtained when these two treatments are combined and initiated within 14 days of symptom onset. HBO2 is given at 2-2.5 ATA for 90 minutes for 10-20 sessions. Steroids should be dosed at 1mg/kg/day and slowly tapered over two to three weeks. If a patient is not a good candidate for or refuses systemic steroids, good results have also been obtained using intratympanic (IT) steroids in combination with HBO2. Patients should be followed by and otolaryngologist before, during and following HBO2. For severe hearing loss treatment with HBO2 improves by 37.7 dB, 19.3dB for those with moderate loss and 15.6 dB improvement overall. These recoveries, on average, improve a patient’s hearing from ranges requiring hearing aids and sign language, to levels at which normal or near-normal hearing is restored.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document