Speech perception and quality of life of open-fit hearing aid users

Garcia, Tatiana Manfrini; Jacob, Regina Tangerino de Souza; Mondelli, Maria Fernanda Capoani Garcia

doi:10.1590/1678-775720150321

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies [22][23] that used WHOQOL-bref to measure the quality of life of hearing aid users indicate that both the quality of life and the health satisfaction of adults and the elderly tend to improve with the use of the device. The present study supports these findings, considering that more than half of the sample that used hearing aid effectively presented a good evaluation of the quality of life in the physical, psychological, social and environmental fields, conforming to with other studies carried out in Israel, Spain, Brazil and Finland [24][25][26][27] . The use of hearing aid was related to the chance of having a better quality of life.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual

Ribeiro

Souza

Lemos

2019

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO Objetivo Verificar a associação entre qualidade de vida, aspectos socioambientais e estado geral de saúde de usuários de um Serviço de Atenção à Saúde Auditiva. Método Estudo observacional analítico do tipo transversal, com amostra aleatória simples. Realizou-se entrevista semiestruturada com 114 adultos e idosos, entre 19-92 anos, usuários de AASI atendidos em um serviço de saúde auditiva. Os participantes responderam questões referentes à caracterização, dados sociodemográficos e qualidade de vida. Para estudo dos aspectos assistenciais, realizou-se busca nos prontuários. Foram realizados os testes Mann Whitney, Quiquadrado e Exato de Fisher para associação. As análises foram realizadas no software STATA considerando 5% de significância. Para a análise multivariada, iniciou-se o modelo cheio com todas as variáveis significativas a 20%. Considerou-se modelo de regressão logística, sendo repetido até restarem as variáveis com p<5%. Resultados A maioria dos participantes era do gênero feminino, com idade superior a 60 anos e realizou a primeira consulta com o fonoaudiólogo. Quanto ao WHOQOL-bref, mais da metade da amostra relatou boa qualidade de vida e satisfação com a saúde. Em relação às queixas associadas, a maioria dos que não apresentavam tontura, plenitude auricular e depressão referiu boa qualidade de vida. Observou-se associação com significância estatística entre a satisfação com a saúde, maior média de idade e menor escolaridade. Na análise multivariada, o uso efetivo do AASI e não apresentar histórico de tontura associaram-se à boa qualidade de vida. Para a variável saúde, verificou-se que não apresentar tontura aumentou as chances de estar satisfeito com a saúde, enquanto que a cada ano a mais de escolaridade a chance de estar satisfeito reduziu. Conclusão O uso do AASI está relacionado a uma boa percepção da qualidade de vida e do estado de saúde de indivíduos que apresentam perda auditiva.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual

Ribeiro

Souza

Lemos

2019

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hearing aids are the primary, but certainly not the only, intervention for hearing loss (Sprinzl & Riechelmann 2010; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016; Ferguson et al 2017). The benefits of hearing aids include improved speech perception and communication function (Humes 2002;Cox et al 2014;Garcia et al 2016;Johnson et al 2016), reduced psychosocial implications of hearing loss (Humes & Wilson 2003;Kricos et al 2007;Desjardins & Doherty 2017), and improved health and hearing-related quality of life (Mulrow et al 1990;Chisolm et al 2005Chisolm et al , 2007Cox et al 2014;Garcia et al 2016). Secondary benefits of hearing aids include reduced impact of hearing loss on significant others (Stark & Hickson 2004;Barker et al 2017) and reduced Medicare spending compared with patients with untreated hearing loss (Willink et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement

Smith,

Francis,

Witsell

et al. 2023

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no). Design: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider. Results: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80–1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9–57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups. Conclusions: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

show abstract

“…peech perception in the presence of noise has long been a barrier to communication for those with hearing loss and is associated with reduced quality of life, 1 even for those who use hearing amplification devices. [2][3][4] Social interactions in environments with background noise are more challenging, and the inability to communicate effectively can be distressing to those with hearing loss. 5,6 In the presence of background noise, auditory signals are degraded, resulting in decreased intelligibility and, ultimately, decreased accuracy in communication.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Speech Recognition: Improving Speech Perception in Noise through Artificial Intelligence

Raghavan

Lipschitz

Breen

et al. 2020

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare speech perception (SP) in noise for normal-hearing (NH) individuals and individuals with hearing loss (IWHL) and to demonstrate improvements in SP with use of a visual speech recognition program (VSRP). Study Design Single-institution prospective study. Setting Tertiary referral center. Subjects and Methods Eleven NH and 9 IWHL participants in a sound-isolated booth facing a speaker through a window. In non-VSRP conditions, SP was evaluated on 40 Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test (BKB-SIN) sentences presented by the speaker at 50 A-weighted decibels (dBA) with multiperson babble noise presented from 50 to 75 dBA. SP was defined as the percentage of words correctly identified. In VSRP conditions, an infrared camera was used to track 35 points around the speaker’s lips during speech in real time. Lip movement data were translated into speech-text via an in-house developed neural network–based VSRP. SP was evaluated similarly in the non-VSRP condition on 42 BKB-SIN sentences, with the addition of the VSRP output presented on a screen to the listener. Results In high-noise conditions (70-75 dBA) without VSRP, NH listeners achieved significantly higher speech perception than IWHL listeners (38.7% vs 25.0%, P = .02). NH listeners were significantly more accurate with VSRP than without VSRP (75.5% vs 38.7%, P < .0001), as were IWHL listeners (70.4% vs 25.0% P < .0001). With VSRP, no significant difference in SP was observed between NH and IWHL listeners (75.5% vs 70.4%, P = .15). Conclusions The VSRP significantly increased speech perception in high-noise conditions for NH and IWHL participants and eliminated the difference in SP accuracy between NH and IWHL listeners.

show abstract

Speech perception and quality of life of open-fit hearing aid users

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual

Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement

Visual Speech Recognition: Improving Speech Perception in Noise through Artificial Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About