In a number of respects bilaterally fitted hearing aids offered a benefit relative to unilaterally fitted hearing aids (the so-called bilateral benefit), both subjectively (questionnaire) and objectively (speech perception in noise and localization). However, we found large interindividual differences and not all differences were clinically relevant. The results of the diagnostic tests showed that it was not possible to predict the bilateral benefit from a priori information based on headphone tests. At the end of the trial period 93% of the participants preferred a bilateral fitting.

Two methods of fine tuning the initial settings of hearing aids were compared: An audiologist-driven approach--using real ear measurements and a patient-driven fine-tuning approach--using feedback from real-life situations. The patient-driven fine tuning was conducted by employing the Amplifit ® II system using audiovideo clips. The audiologist-driven fine tuning was based on the NAL-NL1 prescription rule. Both settings were compared using the same hearing aids in two 6-week trial periods following a randomized blinded cross-over design. After each trial period, the settings were evaluated by insertion-gain measurements. Performance was evaluated by speech tests in quiet, in noise, and in time-reversed speech, presented at 0° and with spatially separated sound sources. Subjective results were evaluated using extensive questionnaires and audiovisual video clips. A total of 73 participants were included. On average, higher gain values were found for the audiologist-driven settings than for the patient-driven settings, especially at 1000 and 2000 Hz. Better objective performance was obtained for the audiologist-driven settings for speech perception in quiet and in time-reversed speech. This was supported by better scores on a number of subjective judgments and in the subjective ratings of video clips. The perception of loud sounds scored higher than when patient-driven, but the overall preference was in favor of the audiologist-driven settings for 67% of the participants.

No abstract

The analysis of the relation between objective parameters and the subjective outcome measures showed that candidacy for a successful bilateral fitting could not be predicted from age, maximum speech intelligibility, employment, exposure to background noise, or social activities.

Objective Need for recovery is a predictor of work stress and health problems, but its underlying factors are not yet well understood. We aimed to identify hearing-related, work-related, and personal factors influencing need for recovery in hearing-impaired employees. Methods We retrospectively identified hearing-impaired employees (N = 294) that were referred to the Amsterdam University Medical Center between 2004 and 2019. Routinely obtained healthcare data were used, including a survey and hearing assessments. A directed acyclic graph was constructed, revealing the hypothesized structure of factors influencing need for recovery as well as the minimal set of factors needed for multiple regression analysis. Results Four variables were included in the regression analysis. In total, 46.1% of the variance in need for recovery was explained by the factors feeling that something should change at work (B = 19.01, p < 0.001), self-perceived listening effort (B = 1.84, p < 0.001), personal adaptations scale score (B = − 0.34, p < .001), and having a moderate/poor general health condition (B = 20.06, p < 0.001). Although degree of hearing loss was associated with self-perceived listening effort, the direct association between degree of hearing loss and need for recovery was not significant. Conclusions The results suggest that the way employees perceive their hearing loss and how they cope with it directly influence need for recovery, rather than their measured degree of hearing loss. Additionally, general health condition was found to be an independent factor for need for recovery. The results should be confirmed by future, longitudinal research.