Effectiveness of group versus individual hearing aid visits

Abstract

Abstract-Demand for hearing aid services in the VeteransHealth Administration increased over 300% from 1996 to 2005, challenging the delivery of timely, high-quality care. Using group visits may help meet these needs, but whether this approach would still provide high-quality rehabilitation is unclear. This study determined whether group visits worsen hearing aid outcomes. It included a retrospective observational cohort in veterans seeking hearing aids at the Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System from September 2004 to March 2005, when the clinic was using both individual and group visits. Medical records were reviewed for all new hearing aid patients seen during this period. Hearing-related outcome questionnaires were compared between patients seen for individual versus group fitting and/or follow-up visits. Results revealed that hearing thresholds were similar between patients seen individually and in groups. Of 74 patients who returned self-administered questionnaires after the follow-up, those who received both fitting and follow-up in a group format reported similar hearing handicap and better hearing-related function, satisfaction, and adherence than patients who received individual visits. Group visits did not appear to yield worse outcomes in this nonrandomized retrospective chart review. Definitive statements must await randomized comparisons.

Determinants of hearing-aid adoption and use among the elderly: A systematic review

“…Similar to fi ndings on improved compliance following group consultations on the management of chronic diseases, it was shown that a group consultation on hearing aids led to better adherence to wearing hearing aids (Collins et al, 2007). A group consultation can be seen as an occasion where an individual can gather necessary information from both the audiology professional and people who are either potential or existing hearing-aid users.…”

“…A summary of these studies was drawn up, listing the author and year of publication, country, study design, and data collection method, aim, subjects, sample size, instruments used, hearing-aid (Hartley et al, 2010;Ham et al, 2014;Hickson et al, 2014), and only two in Asia (Chang et al, 2009;Mizutari et al, 2013). The majority of the studies were cross-sectional studies, three were cohort studies (Collins et al, 2007;Fischer et al, 2011;Mizutari et al, 2013), two were randomized controlled trials (Yueh et al, 2001;Saunders et al, 2009), and one was a longitudinal study (Humes et al, 2002). The age of the participants of these studies ranged from 50 to 97.…”

“…Questionnaires were used in most of the studies to obtain data, while face-to-face interviews were employed in seven studies (Smeeth et al, 2002;Lupsakko et al, 2005, Palmer et al, 2006Chang et al, 2009;Lopez-Torres Hidalgo et al, 2009;Hartley et al, 2010;Mizutari et al, 2013), and case records in one (Collins et al, 2007).…”

“…The HHIE and HHIE-S were used in nine of the included studies; with fi ve using the twenty-fi ve-item standard version (Yueh et al, 2001;Cox et al, 2005;Collins et al, 2007;Saunders et al, 2009;Mizutari et al, 2013), and four using the 10-item screening version (Chang et al, 2009;Lopez-Torres Hidalgo et al, 2009;Hartley et al, 2010;Fischer et al, 2011). The Abbreviate Profi le for Hearing Aid Benefi t (APHAB) is a 24-item self-assessment instrument measuring activity limitations (Cox & Alexander, 1995).…”

“…A study that evaluated the effects of group consultations versus individual consultations for the fi tting of hearing aids, found that those who attended a group consultation reported longer daily hours of hearing-aid use (Collins et al, 2007). In another study, support from signifi cant others was identifi ed as a strong determinant of hearing-aid use .…”