A Systematic Review of Studies Measuring and Reporting Hearing Aid Usage in Older Adults since 1999: A Descriptive Summary of Measurement Tools

Abstract

ObjectiveA systematic review was conducted to identify and quality assess how studies published since 1999 have measured and reported the usage of hearing aids in older adults. The relationship between usage and other dimensions of hearing aid outcome, age and hearing loss are summarised.Data sourcesArticles were identified through systematic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, The University of Nottingham Online Catalogue, Web of Science and through reference checking. Study eligibility criteria: (1) participants aged fifty years or over with sensori-neural hearing loss, (2) provision of an air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(s) and (4) published between 1999 and 2011.ResultsOf the initial 1933 papers obtained from the searches, a total of 64 were found eligible for review and were quality assessed on six dimensions: study design, choice of outcome instruments, level of reporting (usage, age, and audiometry) and cross validation of usage measures. Five papers were rated as being of high quality (scoring 10–12), 35 papers were rated as being of moderate quality (scoring 7–9), 22 as low quality (scoring 4–6) and two as very low quality (scoring 0–2). Fifteen different methods were identified for assessing the usage of hearing aids.ConclusionsGenerally, the usage data reviewed was not well specified. There was a lack of consistency and robustness in the way that usage of hearing aids was assessed and categorised. There is a need for more standardised level of reporting of hearing aid usage data to further understand the relationship between usage and hearing aid outcomes.

A Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of Data Logging in Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Automated Scene Classification Technologies

“…However, these can often be misleading or unavailable, especially with older and younger subjects, and they have an intrinsic bias represented by under-or overestimation and inaccurate responses. Moreover, self-reports do not allow comparison of 1 patient with another or 1 patient over time [Perez and Edmonds, 2012]. This is the first study reporting normative data on the SCAN and data logging functions available with the Nucleus 6 sound processor, in a large cohort of CI users ranging from babies to elderly patients.…”

Evaluating hearing aid handling skills: A systematic and descriptive review

“…The criteria by which each measure is evaluated against are general and numerical cut-offs may vary depending on the field. As such, we incorporated recommendations from the literature (specific to audiological research where available) when defining the cut-offs for the criteria used in this review, which are described in more detail in Table 1 (Guyatt et al, 1992;Bentler & Kramer, 2000;Hyde, 2000;Terwee et al, 2007;Revicki et al, 2008;Kottner et al, 2011;Barten et al, 2012;Perez & Edmonds, 2012). (Nunnally et al, 1967;Guyatt et al, 1993), and is often achieved through expert opinion, opinion of the intended population, or reviewing the literature and existing surveys.…”

Effects of a Dual Sensory Loss Protocol on Hearing Aid Outcomes

“…International Outcome Inventory for HAs • The first questionnaire was the widely used International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) (Cox et al 2000Perez & Edmonds 2012) and includes seven items addressing: (1) daily HA use, (2) benefit, (3) residual activity limitations, (4) satisfaction, (5) residual participation restrictions, (6) impact on others, and (7) quality of life (Cox & Alexander 2002). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.…”