Abstract:Introduction Periodic follow-up appointments are important to ensure long-term effectiveness of rehabilitation with hearing aids. However, not all users are able to maintain adherence to recommendations prescribed during the fitting process and some do not attend those appointments, which compromises the effectiveness of treatment.
Objective Compare hearing aid use after 1 year between subjects who did not attend a follow-up evaluation appointment at a publicly-funded health service (nonattenders) and those wh… Show more
“…Adherence tends to be lower in patients over 80 years old who use bilateral devices [ 12 ]. A long time of use of the device is associated with more daily use [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Studies have shown that a longer duration of device use is associated with increased daily usage [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A long time of use of the device is associated with more daily use [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Studies have shown that a longer duration of device use is associated with increased daily usage [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Maul et al support these findings and assert that approximately half of the patients prescribed hearing aids do not utilize them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have shown that better adherence is associated with more frequent medical consultations and closer monitoring by healthcare professionals. Providing detailed information and regular monitoring increases patients’ motivation to seek information, try the devices, and ultimately use them [ 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Abdellaoui et al found that one-third of patients with age-related hearing loss did not complete the follow-up of their hearing aid prescription with ENT services, citing reasons such as economic constraints or lack of motivation.…”
Purpose: To examine the prevalence of adherence to hearing aids and determine their rejection causes. Methods: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting terms for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed an electronic search using PubMed, BVS, and Embase. Results: 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. They analyzed a total of 12,696 individuals. We observed that the most common causes for positive adherence to hearing aid use included having a higher degree of hearing loss, patients being aware of their condition, and requiring the device in their daily life. The most common causes for rejection were the lack of perceived benefits or discomfort with the use of the device. The results from the meta-analysis show a prevalence of patients who used their hearing aid of 0.623 (95% CI 0.531, 0.714). Both groups are highly heterogeneous (I2 = 99.31% in each group, p < 0.05). Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients (38%) do not use their hearing aid devices. Homogeneous multicenter studies using the same methodology are needed to analyze the causes of rejection of hearing aids.
“…Adherence tends to be lower in patients over 80 years old who use bilateral devices [ 12 ]. A long time of use of the device is associated with more daily use [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Studies have shown that a longer duration of device use is associated with increased daily usage [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A long time of use of the device is associated with more daily use [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Studies have shown that a longer duration of device use is associated with increased daily usage [ 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Maul et al support these findings and assert that approximately half of the patients prescribed hearing aids do not utilize them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have shown that better adherence is associated with more frequent medical consultations and closer monitoring by healthcare professionals. Providing detailed information and regular monitoring increases patients’ motivation to seek information, try the devices, and ultimately use them [ 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 ]. Abdellaoui et al found that one-third of patients with age-related hearing loss did not complete the follow-up of their hearing aid prescription with ENT services, citing reasons such as economic constraints or lack of motivation.…”
Purpose: To examine the prevalence of adherence to hearing aids and determine their rejection causes. Methods: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting terms for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed an electronic search using PubMed, BVS, and Embase. Results: 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. They analyzed a total of 12,696 individuals. We observed that the most common causes for positive adherence to hearing aid use included having a higher degree of hearing loss, patients being aware of their condition, and requiring the device in their daily life. The most common causes for rejection were the lack of perceived benefits or discomfort with the use of the device. The results from the meta-analysis show a prevalence of patients who used their hearing aid of 0.623 (95% CI 0.531, 0.714). Both groups are highly heterogeneous (I2 = 99.31% in each group, p < 0.05). Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients (38%) do not use their hearing aid devices. Homogeneous multicenter studies using the same methodology are needed to analyze the causes of rejection of hearing aids.
Purpose
This study aimed to (a) identify participant factors associated with hearing aid review (HAR) appointment attendance, (b) investigate whether the completion of self-report survey identifying hearing aid–related problems affects HAR appointment attendance, and (c) investigate whether hearing aid problems and hearing aid management deficiencies are adequately addressed during HAR appointments.
Method
A prospective cohort study of adult hearing aid owners recruited from a single hearing clinic in Western Australia. Potential participants were invited to an annual HAR appointment via postal letter. The invitation included a paper-based self-report survey evaluating either (a) hearing aid problems, (b) hearing aid management skills, or (c) hearing aid outcomes, depending on which intervention/control group the potential participants were assigned to, and a reply paid addressed envelope. Two months later, potential participants were sent all three paper-based self-report surveys, irrespective of whether they had attended or not attended an HAR appointment.
Results
(a) There was no significant difference in gender or source of funding for hearing services between HAR appointment attendees and nonattendees. HAR nonattendees lived a greater distance from their clinic and were younger than attendees. (b) Survey completion did not influence HAR appointment attendance rates. (c) A significant reduction in individuals' self-reported hearing aid problems was recorded following the attendance at the HAR appointment. No significant changes in hearing aid management skills or overall hearing aid outcomes were detected.
Conclusions
Long travel distances may be a barrier to attendance at review appointments. HAR appointments appear to be effective in improving hearing aid problems.
BackgroundAccess to audiology services for older adults residing in sparsely populated regions is often limited compared to those in central urban areas. The geographic accessibility to follow-up care, particularly the influence of distance, may contribute to an increased risk of hearing aid abandonment.ObjectiveTo assess the association between the home-to-healthcare-calibration-center distance and hearing aid abandonment among older adults fitted in the Chilean public health system.Methods455 patients who received hearing aids from two public hospitals in two regions were considered. Univariate and multivariate Poisson regression models with robust variance estimation were used to analyze the association between the geographical distance and hearing aid abandonment, accounting for confounding effects.ResultsApproximately 18% of the sample abandoned the hearing aid, and around 50% reported using the hearing aid every day. A twofold increase in distance between home and the hearing center yielded a 35% (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04–1.74; p = 0.022) increased risk of hearing aid abandonment. Also, those in the second quintile had a 2.17 times the risk of abandoning the hearing aid compared to the first quintile (up to 2.3 km). Under the assumption that patients reside within the first quintile of distance, a potential reduction of 45% in the incidence of hearing aid abandonment would be observed. The observed risk remained consistent across different statistical models to assess sensitivity.ConclusionA higher distance between the residence and the healthcare center increases hearing aid abandonment risk. The association may be explained by barriers in purchasing supplies required to maintain the device (batteries, cleaning elements, potential repairs, or maintenance).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.