Assessment of Consumer Attitudes Following Recent Changes in the US Hearing Health Care Market

Abstract

ImportanceThe addition of over-the-counter hearing aid (HA) options has transformed the way individuals can access hearing health care (HHC). However, although critical to their adoption and use, consumer attitudes and opinions about direct-to-consumer (DTC) models of health care are often understudied.ObjectiveTo assess how recent DTC market changes in HHC delivery may be associated with consumer choice and attitudes towards specific HHC models.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA mixed-methods survey, distributed online between March 22 and 25, 2022, using Qualtrics Survey Panels. Participants were US residents older than 50 years with no previous hearing aid experience, enrolled using consecutive sampling. A minimum of 1000 completed responses was set; once the 70% threshold was met, any future respondent who identified as White would not be given the survey.Main Outcomes and MeasuresRespondents were asked to report their level of comfort with using different variations of DTC-HHC and asked about their previous experience with other DTC health care models. Respondents then reported which model (in-person vs online) of HHC they would most likely pursue.ResultsOf 1377 respondents, 1037 were included in the survey study (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [7.84] years; 714 [69.0%] were female; 674 [65.0%] were White). Most respondents reported discomfort with pursuing hearing aids via DTC pathways, with 84% (874 of 1037) indicating they would pursue HHC via an in-person model. Individuals who were older (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98), reported an income greater than $150 000 (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-0.91), and were not interested in HA (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.79) were less likely to pursue HHC online. Those who had previous experience with DTC health care (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.27-3.02), and did not have (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.59-4.31) or were uncertain (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) about their insurance coverage for HA were more likely to pursue HHC online.Conclusions and RelevanceCurrent consumer attitudes and opinions found in this survey study suggest that DTC-HHC may not find immediate acceptance by most potential HA seekers in the US.

Omission of Sources for 2 Questions in Survey Instrument

“…Corrections have been made to the Methods section of the article and the Supplement that includes the survey questions. 4 Jasleen Singh, PhD Sumit Dhar, PhD…”

“…This lead time to recurrence was longer than reported median time to nodal recurrence after a positive SLNB result (8 months) and is therefore likely to represent micrometastatic disease progression rather than large lymphatic obstruction. 3 Indeed, long-term follow-up from both the MSLT-1 and Sunbelt melanoma clinical trials 4,5 did not show any worse overall survival outcome between patients with false-negative SLNB and positive SLNB results, although it is important to remember that both excluded head and neck melanomas.…”

“…To the Editor We thank editors and a reader for bringing to our attention the omission of 2 citations that should have been included as sources for the survey instrument used in our Original Investigation, “Assessment of Consumer Attitudes Following Recent Changes in the US Hearing Health Care Market,” that was published online on January 19, 2023, and the March 2023 issue of JAMA Otolaryngology−Head & Neck Surgery .…”

Omission in Methods and Supplement

“…In the Original Investigation, “Assessment of Consumer Attitudes Following Recent Changes in the US Hearing Health Care Market,” published online on January 19, 2023, and the March 2023 issue, there was an omission of sources for 2 questions in the survey instrument. The description of the consumer survey development should have referenced the Trust in Physician Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales as sources.…”

“…The description of the consumer survey development should have referenced the Trust in Physician Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales as sources. The authors have published a Letter to explain the omissions, which affect the Methods section and the Supplement. This article has been corrected.…”