Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation

Barker, Fiona; Mackenzie, Emma; Elliott, Lynette; Jones, Simon; Lusignan, Simon de

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010342.pub3

Cited by 63 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps the time has come to de-emphasize technological sophistication and re-energize commitment to non-technological aspects of hearing care. This largely untapped field of study (Barker et al 2014) has the potential to point the way to valuable incremental effectiveness in the treatment of chronic adult-onset mild to moderate hearing loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients’ Perspective

Cox

Johnson

2016

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives One of the challenges facing hearing care providers when recommending hearing aids is the choice of device technology level. Major manufacturers market families of hearing aids that are described as spanning the range from basic technology to premium technology. Premium technology hearing aids include acoustical processing capabilities (features) that are not found in basic technology instruments. These premium features are intended to yield improved hearing in daily life compared to basic-feature devices. However, independent research that establishes the incremental effectiveness of premium-feature devices compared to basic-feature devices is lacking. This research was designed to explore reported differences in hearing abilities for adults using premium-feature and basic-feature hearing aids in their daily lives. Design This was a single-blinded, repeated, crossover trial in which the participants were blinded. All procedures were carefully controlled to limit researcher bias. Forty-five participants used carefully fitted bilateral hearing aids for one month and then provided data to describe the hearing improvements or deficiencies noted in daily life. Typical participants were 70 years old with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss bilaterally. Each participant used 4 pairs of hearing aids: premium- and basic-feature devices from brands marketed by each of two major manufacturers. Participants were blinded about the devices they used and about the research questions. Results All of the outcomes were designed to capture the participant’s point of view about the benefits of the hearing aids. Three types of data were collected: change in hearing-related quality of life, extent of agreement with six positively worded statements about everyday hearing with the hearing aids, and reported preferences between the premium- and basic-feature devices from each brand as well as across all four research hearing aids combined. None of these measures yielded a statistically significant difference in outcomes between premium- and basic-feature devices. Participants did not report better outcomes with premium processing with any measure. Conclusions It could reasonably be asserted that the patient’s perspective is the gold standard for hearing aid effectiveness. While the acoustical processing provided by premium features can potentially improve scores on tests conducted in contrived conditions in a laboratory, or on specific items in a questionnaire, this does not ensure that the processing will be of noteworthy benefit when the hearing aid is used in the real world challenges faced by the patient. If evidence suggests the patient cannot detect that premium features yield improvements over basic features in daily life, what is the responsibility of the provider in recommending hearing aid technology level? In the current research, there was no evidence to suggest that premium-feature devices yielded better outcomes than basic-feature devices from the patient’s point of view. All of the research hearin...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients’ Perspective

Cox

Johnson

2016

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Google and Google Scholar were the only search engines reported. Both search engines were reported in 7 reviews; Google was reported as the sole search engine in 4 reviews (11 reviews in total); Google Scholar was reported as the sole search engine in 12 reviews (19 reviews in total); and an unnamed search engine was reported in 1 review …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Google and Google Scholar were the only search engines reported. Both search engines were reported in 7 reviews [27][28][29][30][31][32][33] ; Google was reported as the sole search engine in 4 reviews (11 reviews in total) [34][35][36][37] ; Google Scholar was reported as the sole search engine in 12 reviews (19 reviews in total) 25,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] ; and an unnamed search engine was reported in 1 review. 26 Of the 5 reviews that reported the total number of results or the number that was screened, 2 reviews reported the total number of results 27,40 and 3 reviews reported the number that was screened.…”

Section: Additional Details Reported About Search Enginesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

Briscoe

2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…Barker et al (2016) attributed these null findings to the poor methodological quality of the studies included in the review and concluded that new studies employing better-quality methodologies are needed to improve hearing aid use. One key limitation of the studies included in Barker et al's (2016) systematic review is that none made explicit use of behaviour change theory to design the interventions aimed at improving hearing aid use. Explicit use of theory is one means by which behaviour change interventions can be optimized (Michie & Prestwich, 2010).…”

Section: Statement Of Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is clear that suboptimal hearing aid use is a multifactorial problem, but that many of the solutions require that patients engage with services, from initial assessments of hearing to solving technical problems with assistive hearing devices (McCormack & Fortnum, 2013). However, there are potentially powerful psychological barriers to engaging fully with hearing services, and it is notable that Barker et al (2016) found that interventions designed to reconfigure hearing health services (e.g., reorganizing the scheduling of care) were not effective in improving hearing aid use. One factor that might explain both lack of engagement with services and reluctance to wear hearing aids is the stigma associated with hearing aid use.…”

Section: Barriers To Hearing Aid Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary support for a brief psychological intervention to improve first‐time hearing aid use among adults

Armitage

Lees

Lewis

et al. 2017

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesSuboptimal hearing aid use extorts significant social, health, and economic costs. The aims of this study were to (1) test the novel hypothesis that the threat associated with being diagnosed with hearing loss could be ameliorated with a self‐affirmation manipulation and (2) gauge the feasibility of deploying the manipulation in routine clinical practice.DesignParallel groups randomized controlled trial with 10‐week follow‐up.MethodFifty people, newly prescribed with a hearing aid, completed either a questionnaire that included a brief self‐affirming exercise or an identical questionnaire with no self‐affirming exercise. The main outcome measure was derived from data logging automatically stored by the hearing aid. Perceived threat (‘anxiety about ageing’), behavioural intention, and self‐efficacy were measured as potential mediators.ResultsObjectively measured hours of daily hearing aid use were marginally higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (between‐group difference = 1.94 hr, 95%CI = −1.24, 5.12, d = 0.43). At follow‐up, participants in the intervention group were significantly less anxious about ageing and more accepting of older people than were participants in the control group (between‐group difference = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.26, 1.22, d = 0.87). There was no statistically significant effect of the intervention on behavioural intention or self‐efficacy.ConclusionsAlthough not statistically significant, the magnitude of the effect of the intervention on hearing aid use (d = 0.43) suggests that it would be worthwhile working towards a fully powered randomized controlled trial. The ability to reduce anxieties about ageing with this brief intervention could have far‐reaching benefits for multiple patient and general population groups. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Hearing impairment is more disabling than diabetes, yet hearing aid use is suboptimal.Anxieties about ageing may undermine hearing aid use. What does this study add? The study tests a brief theory‐based psychological intervention to reduce anxiety about ageing and promote hearing aid use.Results show that the brief psychological intervention reduced anxiety and marginally increased objective hearing aid use.Further work is required to identify other situations in which anxieties about ageing undermine behaviour change efforts.The very brief, flexible nature of the intervention means it could be adapted and deployed in numerous other health care settings.

show abstract

Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation

Cited by 63 publications

References 130 publications

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients’ Perspective

Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients’ Perspective

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

Preliminary support for a brief psychological intervention to improve first‐time hearing aid use among adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About