Effectiveness of Counseling-Based Adult Group Aural Rehabilitation Programs: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Abstract

A systematic evidence-based review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of counseling and communication strategy-oriented group adult aural rehabilitation (AR) programs. The literature search for relevant articles focused on studies that (1) employed adults with hearing impairment; (2) used a group aural rehabilitation program that emphasized counseling and communication strategies; (3) utilized a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or non-intervention cohort design; (4) employed an outcome measure that assessed some aspect of personal adjustment, perceived hearing handicap, or hearing aid benefit and/or satisfaction; and (5) were published in a refereed journal. Twelve articles were found that met these inclusion criteria. Analysis of the 12 studies led to the following conclusion: there is reasonably good evidence that participation in an adult AR program provides short-term reduction in self-perception of hearing handicap and potentially better use of communication strategies and hearing aids. It is less clear whether this advantage over provision of hearing aids alone persists over time.

Effectiveness of group versus individual hearing aid visits

“…Future studies should address these and other features. Hawkins' review of the effectiveness of group aural rehabilitation programs concluded that large randomized controlled trials are needed that include patients from the general population (i.e., nonveterans), use multiple measures that assess various outcome domains (e.g., handicap, benefit, satisfaction, QOL), study the effects of participation by significant others, and measure effects at short-and long-term intervals [12].…”

“…A number of VA audiology programs have started offering group hearing aid fitting and/or follow-up appointments. While a number of studies suggest that group aural rehabilitation visits can produce equivalent or better patient outcomes when offered as a supplement to standard care [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], only limited observational evidence suggests that group follow-up visits yield hearing aid patient outcomes (e.g., hearing handicap, satisfaction, adherence) that are at least as good as individual visits [20]. No studies have been published that compare group and individual hearing aid fitting visits.…”

Development of an Auditory Rehabilitation Training Programme for Hearing Impaired Adults in Saudi Arabia

“…The rationale for having the final assessment eight weeks after being fitted with the hearing aid was to ensure that the participants' performance was stable and not exaggerated, since a number of studies have found that participants' performance three weeks after hearing aid fitting tends to be better than when the evaluation is performed three to six months later. This is known as the 'honeymoon' or 'halo' effect, referring to an initial increase in the hearing aid user's reaction towards the benefit they receive from the hearing aid [21,22]. To avoid this effect several studies have suggested that final assessments should be performed between six and eight weeks after being fitted with the hearing aid because the hearing aid user's performance tends to be stable during this period of time [23,24].…”

Self-determination theory and hearing rehabilitation: The role of motivation in help-seeking, hearing aid adoption and hearing aid fitting outcomes

“…For each form of intervention there has been evidence of benefit (Takahashi et al, 2007;Johnson, Danhauer, Ellis, & Jilla, 2016;Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007b;Hawkins, 2005;Sweetow & Palmer, 2005;Jennings, 2009) and improved quality of life (Chisolm et al, 2007a;Cox, Johnson, & Xu, 2016;Chisolm et al, 2007b;Hickson, Worrall, & Scarinci, 2006;Kramer, Allessie, Dondorp, Zekveld, & Kapteyn, 2005;Preminger & Yoo, 2010). Among these interventions, hearing aid fitting has been the most commonly recommended by audiologists .…”

“…Despite the efficacy of rehabilitation options such as individual and group rehabilitation (Hawkins, 2005) and assistive listening devices (Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007), choices appeared to be limited to adopting or not adopting hearing aids, or if hearing aids were accepted, the range of hearing aid styles. To promote rehabilitation options within an evidence-based practice framework, decision aids have been suggested as a method of addressing the issue of choice (Woolf et al, 2005;.…”