Dataset Information

Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Personal Sound Amplification Product vs a Basic Hearing Aid and a Premium Hearing Aid.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition with multiple negative associated outcomes, yet few persons with hearing loss have hearing aids (HAs). Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) could be an alternative low-cost solution to HAs, but data are lacking on the performance of PSAPs.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a PSAP by comparing its performance with that of a basic HA and a premium HA in participants with mild, moderate, and moderately severe hearing impairment.

Design, setting, and participants

A prospective, single-institution cohort study was performed with a total of 56 participants, including 19 with mild hearing loss, 20 with moderate hearing loss, and 17 with moderately severe hearing loss. All participants underwent 4 clinical hearing tests with each of the PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA, and all completed an evaluative questionnaire.

Interventions

All hearing devices (PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA) were applied by a clinician to prevent bias and order effects; participants were blinded to the device in use, and sequence of devices was randomized.

Main outcomes and measures

The study used the Korean version of the hearing in noise test, the speech intelligibility in noise test, listening effort measurement using a dual-task paradigm, pupillometry, and a self-rating questionnaire regarding sound quality and preference. These tests were administered under the following 4 hearing conditions: unaided hearing, use of PSAP, use of basic HA, and use of premium HA.

Results

The study included 56 participants with a mean age of 56 years (interquartile range, 48-59 years); 29 (52%) were women. In the mild and moderate hearing loss groups, there was no meaningful difference between PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA for speech perception (Cohen d = 0.06-1.05), sound quality (Cohen d = 0.06-0.71), listening effort (Cohen d = 0.10-0.92), and user preference (PSAP, 41%; basic HA, 28%; premium HA, 31%). However, for the patients with moderately severe hearing loss, the premium HA had better performance across most tests (Cohen d = 0.60-1.59), and 70% of participants preferred to use the premium HA.

Conclusions and relevance

The results indicate that basic and premium HAs were not superior to the PSAP in patients with mild to moderate hearing impairment, which suggests that PSAPs might be used as an alternative to HAs in these patient populations. However, if hearing loss is more severe, then HAs, especially premium HAs, should be considered as an option to manage hearing loss.

SUBMITTER: Cho YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537843 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187).FindingsOf 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I 2=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I 2=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I 2=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids.InterpretationPSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices.FundingThis work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Project description:ImportanceAge-related hearing loss that impairs daily communication is associated with adverse health outcomes, but use of hearing aids by older adults is low and disparities exist.ObjectiveTo test whether an affordable, accessible hearing care intervention, delivered by community health workers using over-the-counter hearing technology, could improve self-perceived communication function among older adults with hearing loss compared with a wait-list control.Design, setting, and participantsOpen-label randomized clinical trial conducted between April 2018 and October 2019 with 3-month data collection completed in June 2020. The trial took place at 13 community sites, including affordable independent housing complexes (n = 10), senior centers (n = 2), and an older adult social club (n = 1) in Baltimore, Maryland. A total of 151 participants aged 60 years or older with hearing loss were randomized.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive a community health worker-delivered hearing care intervention (n = 78) or to a wait-list control group (n = 73). The 2-hour intervention consisted of fitting a low-cost amplification device and instruction.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in self-perceived communication function (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version [HHIE-S]; score range, 0-40; higher scores indicate poorer function) from baseline to 3 months postrandomization. The average treatment effect was estimated using the doubly robust weighted least squares estimator, which uses an outcome regression model weighted by the inverse probability of attrition to account for baseline covariate imbalance and missing data.ResultsAmong 151 participants randomized (mean age, 76.7 [SD, 8.0] years; 101 [67.8%] women; 65 [43%] self-identified as African American; 96 [63.6%] with low income [<$25 000 annual household income]), 136 (90.1%) completed 3-month follow-up for the primary outcome. In the intervention group, 90.5% completed the intervention session and reported at least 1 hour of daily amplification use at 3 months postrandomization. Mean scores for the HHIE-S were 21.7 (SD, 9.4) at baseline and 7.9 (SD, 9.2) at 3 months (change of -13.2 [SD, 10.3]) in the intervention group, and 20.1 (SD, 10.1) at baseline and 21 (SD, 9.1) at 3 months (change of 0.6 [SD, 7.1]) in the control group. Self-perceived communication function significantly improved in the intervention group compared with the control group, with an estimated average treatment effect of the intervention of a -12.98-point HHIE-S change (95% CI, -15.51 to -10.42). No study-related adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceAmong older adults with hearing loss, a community health worker-delivered personal sound amplification device intervention, compared with a wait-list control, significantly improved self-perceived communication function at 3 months. Findings are limited by the absence of a sham control, and further research is needed to understand effectiveness compared with other types of care delivery models and amplification devices.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442296.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Using a probe-tube microphone to measure and adjust the real-ear performance of the hearing aid to match the prescription target is recommended and widely used in clinical practice. Hearing aid fitting software can approximately match the amplification characteristics of the hearing aid to the prescription without real-ear measurements (REMs), but using REM improves the match to the prescribed target. What is unclear is if the improved match results in a better patient-reported outcome. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether the use of REM improves patient-reported outcomes in adult hearing aid users. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review's methods are in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL via Cochrane Library will be searched to identify relevant studies. The review's population of interest will include adults with any degree of sensorineural or mixed hearing loss who have been prescribed with acoustic hearing aids. The included studies should compare REM fitting to the initial fit provided by the manufacturer's fitting software. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life is the primary outcome but secondary outcomes include self-reported listening ability, speech recognition scores, generic health-related quality of life, hours of use, number of required follow-up sessions and adverse events. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The risk of bias in the included studies will be evaluated using Down and Black's checklist. The quality of the overall evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval will not be sought because this systematic review will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies. Review results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020166074.

Project description:BackgroundChronic subjective tinnitus poses significant challenges in clinical practice, and it is usually associated with hearing impairment, particularly with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Patients suffering from tinnitus with SNHL experience one of the most severe sensory disabilities, and this has devastating effects on their quality of life. Nowadays, mild to moderate SNHL can be managed with a properly fitted hearing aid (HA) that provides sound amplification, and several studies suggest that HAs may also benefit those with tinnitus. However, inadequate attention has been paid by medical personnel to the impact of HA use in residual hearing protection for patients with tinnitus and coexisting SNHL, and existing evidence is still at a preliminary stage. This study aims to identify and evaluate the efficacy of the use of HAs in both sound perception and residual hearing preservation among patients with tinnitus and coexisting SNHL.Methods and designThe present study is a prospective, single-center, outcome assessor and data analyst-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible participants will be recruited and randomly allocated into the HA intervention group and the waiting list control group at a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is to evaluate the severity of tinnitus using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory as a continuous variable at 6 months from randomization. Secondary outcome measures include changes in hearing status and mental states. The trial will last 6 months, with follow-up visits at 3 months and 6 months.DiscussionThis will be the first randomized, controlled trial to identify and evaluate HAs' efficacy on residual hearing preservation among tinnitus patients with coexisting high-frequency SNHL in China. We are aiming for novelty and generalizability, and strengths of this study are that it will examine the effectiveness of HA in patients with tinnitus and hearing impairment and will further explore the residual hearing protection provided by HA treatment in the tinnitus group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05343026. Registered on April 25, 2022.