Management of Hearing Aid Assembly by Urban-Dwelling Hearing-Impaired Adults in a Developed Country

Abstract

A self-fitting hearing aid, designed to be assembled and programmed without audiological or computer support, could bring amplification to millions of people in developing countries, who remain unaided due to the lack of a local, professional, audiological infrastructure. The ability to assemble and insert a hearing aid is fundamental to the successful use of a self-fitting device. In this study, the management of such tasks was investigated. Eighty older, urban-dwelling, hearing-impaired adults in a developed country were asked to follow a set of written, illustrated instructions to assemble two slim-fit behindthe-ear hearing aids. Participants were allowed to access assistance with the task from an accompanying partner. A range of personal and audiometric variables was measured through the use of structured questionnaires and standardized tests of health literacy, cognitive function, and manual dexterity. The results showed that 99% of participants were able to complete the hearing aid assembly task, either on their own or with assistance. Health literacy, or the ability to read and understand health-related text, and gender most strongly influenced participants' ability to complete the assembly task independently and accurately. Higher levels of health literacy were associated with an increased likelihood of independent and successful task completion. Male participants were more likely to complete the task on their own, while female participants were more likely to assemble the device without errors. The results of this study will inform future work regarding development of educational material for the self-fitting hearing aid as well as candidacy for such a device.

Instrumentos de avaliação do letramento em saúde: revisão de literatura

“…Concerning design, the majority of the studies was observational and cross-sectional (n= 22; 81.5%) (11,12,(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(20)(21)(22)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(35)(36)(37) , and some received additional specifications: 3 were pilot studies (11.1%) (20,24,25) , 4 were multi-center studies (14.8%) (11,16,17,30) , and 5 focused on validation of assessment instruments (18.5%) (22,26,31,32,37) . Randomized clinical trials -studies that present higher levels of scientific evidence -totaled only 4 occurrences (14.8%) (19,23,33,34) , and 2 of them were multi-center studies (7.4%) (33,34) .…”

“…The other 2 studies (40.0%) proposed to develop new health literacy assessment instruments, both in the United States: Health LiTT (31) and METER (which includes many words from REALM) (32) . Health literacy was considered an explanatory variable in the majority of the articles (n=16, 59.3%) (11)(12)(13)16,(18)(19)(20)(23)(24)(25)(28)(29)(30)(33)(34)(35) . The articles that considered health literacy the response variable (n=11, 40.7%) (14,15,17,21,22,26,27,31,32,36,37) include the 5 instrument validation studies (18.5%) (22,26,31,32,37) , 4 population-based studies (14.8%) -2 in Taiwan (14,15) , 1 in Finland (27) and 1 intercontinental study (17) , -and 2 studies with diabetic patients (7.4%), carried out in Japan (21,36) .…”

“…Four studies were conducted in Asia (14.8%): 2 in Japan (7.4%) (21,36) and 2 in Taiwan (7.4%) (14,15) . Two studies were carried out in Latin America, both in Brazil (7.4%) (26,37) , and 1 study was conducted in Oceania (Australia) (3.7%) (28) . One intercontinental study involved the participation of countries in Europe, Oceania, North America and South America (3.7%) (17) .…”

“…TOFHLA was chosen in 8 articles (29.6%) (18,19,(22)(23)(24)28,35,37) , and 1 of these studies used both versions of this test (the full and the short versions) (22) . The short version -S-TOFHLA -was the most frequent one (6 articles) (22.2%) (18,19,22,23,28,37) . TOFHLA and its versions were used in the United States, Serbia, Australia and Brazil.…”

“…In 14 articles (51.9%) (11,13,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)23,24,28,30,33,34,36) , general and specific health literacy assessment instruments were used in an associated form, and the approached specialties were: Rheumatology (13,19) Endocrinology (21,36) , Surgery (33,34) (each area approached in 2 articles, 7.4%), Ophthalmology (11) , Pharmacy (17) , Cardiology (18) , Nutrition and Physical Education (20) , Pneumology (23) , Urology and Urogynecology (24) , Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology (28) , Orthopedics and Physiotherapy (30) (each area approached in 1 article, 3.7%). The main characteristics of the health literacy assessment instruments most frequently used in the selected articles are presented on Chart 2.…”