Randomized Trial of Amplification Strategies

Yueh, Bevan; Souza, Pamela E.; McDowell, Jennifer; Collins, Margaret P.; Loovis, Carl F.; Hedrick, Susan C.; Ramsey, Scott D.; Deyo, Richard A.

doi:10.1001/archotol.127.10.1197

Cited by 76 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Improvements were observed up to one year after hearing aid fitting (39). More recently, data comparing the effectiveness of receiving a standard hearing aid, a programmable hearing aid with settings for different listening environments, or an assistive listening device corroborated the earlier findings (65). Users of the programmable aid and the standard hearing aid demonstrated improvements in the social and emotional domains captured by the HHIE as well as improved communication ability assessed with the revised Denver Scale of Communication Function and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) (9).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Quality-of-life measures, such as the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), which are specific to hearing disability, are more likely to result in larger effect sizes than are more general qualityof-life measures, such as the SF-36, which are less sensitive to changes in communication-related quality of life that amplification is designed to improve. Supportive evidence from two randomized controlled trials indicates that the use of hearing aids can improve hearing-related quality of life among older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss (38,65). In the first trial, participants were evaluated with respect to social, affective, cognitive, and physical domains of quality of life using five different instruments including the HHIE (58), which measures the emotional and social effects of hearing loss, and the Quantified Denver Scale of Communication Function (QDS) (53), another instrument designed specifically to assess communication difficulties.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing Loss in an Aging American Population: Extent, Impact, and Management

Bainbridge

Wallhagen

2014

Annu. Rev. Public Health

186

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite contributing substantially to disability in the United States, agerelated hearing loss is an underappreciated public health concern. Loss of hearing sensitivity has been documented in two-thirds of adults aged 70 years and older and has been associated with communication difficulties, lower health-related quality of life, and decreased physical and cognitive function. Management strategies for age-related hearing loss are costly, yet the indirect costs due to lost productivity among people with communication difficulties are also substantial and likely to grow. Hearing aids can improve health-related quality of life, but the majority of people with documented hearing loss do not report using them. Uncovering effective means to improve the utilization of hearing health care services is essential for meeting the hearing health care demands of our aging population. The importance of hearing for general well-being warrants an effort to enhance awareness among the general population of the indications of hearing loss and options for assistance.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Effectiveness Of Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Loss in an Aging American Population: Extent, Impact, and Management

Bainbridge

Wallhagen

2014

Annu. Rev. Public Health

186

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although initially expected as a benefit of nonlinear amplification, compression does not appear to provide substantial benefit in noise compared to linear amplification (eg, Boike and Souza, 2000a;Dreschler et al, 1984;Hohmann and Kollmeier, 1995;Kam and Wong, 1999;Nabelek, 1983;Stone et al, 1997;van Buuren et al, 1999;van Harten-de Bruijn et al, 1997). This is certainly not the case when compared to a directional microphone (Ricketts, 2001;Valente, 1999;Yueh et al, 2001). …”

Section: Using Compression To Normalize Loudnessmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality

Souza

2002

Trends in Amplification

Self Cite

151

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

time, use of compression hearing aids has increased dramatically, from half of hearing aids dispensed only 5 years ago to four out of five hearing aids dispensed today (Strom, 2002b). Most of today's digital and digitally programmable hearing aids are compression devices (Strom, 2002a). It is probable that within a few years, very few patients will be fit with linear hearing aids. Furthermore, compression has increased in complexity, with greater numbers of parameters under the clinician's control. Ideally, these changes will translate to greater flexibility and precision in fitting and selection. However, they also increase the need for information about the effects of compression amplification on speech perception and speech quality. As evidenced by the large number of sessions at professional conferences on fitting compression hearing aids, clinicians continue to have questions about compression technology and when and how it should be used. How does compression work? Who are the best candidates for this technology? How should adjustable parameters be set to provide optimal speech recognition? What effect will compression have on speech quality? These and other questions continue to drive our interest in this technology. This article reviews the effects of compression on the speech signal and the implications for speech intelligibility, quality, and design of clinical procedures.Categorizing Compression tensity vowels such as /i/, and from whispered speech to shouting, the benefit of a linear hearing With a linear hearing aid, a constant gain is ap-aid is restricted when the amplification needed to plied to all input levels until the hearing aid's sat-make low-intensity sounds audible amplifies uration limit is reached. Because daily speech in-high-intensity sounds to the point of discomfort. cludes such a wide range of intensity levels, from In other words, linear hearing aids have a limited low-intensity consonants such as /f/ to high-in-capacity to maximize audibility across a range of 131 From the

show abstract

“…Further, this study shows that the cost of the tone-emitting otoscope was very low, with an average of $1.31 per person screened. In combination with the strong evidence that treatment of hearing loss with hearing aids leads to substantial improvements in social and emotional function, communication function, and depression [9][10][11]34], this provides strong support for leadership to recommend implementation of routine hearing screening with the tone-emitting otoscope.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The development of hearing loss is usually gradual and lacks acute symptoms, leaving the condition underdetected [4][5] and undertreated [6][7]. Thus, many patients with hearing loss do not seek treatment that can alleviate depression symptoms and diminish social isolation associated with this condition, ultimately improving quality of life [8][9][10][11]. The typical hearing aid user waits many years after the onset of hearing loss before seeking treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term cost effectiveness of screening strategies for hearing loss

Liu¹,

Collins²,

Souza³

et al. 2011

JRRD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Routine hearing screening can identify patients who are motivated to seek out and adhere to treatment, but little information exists on the cost-effectiveness of hearing screening in a general population of older veterans. We compared the cost-effectiveness of three screening strategies (toneemitting otoscope, hearing handicap questionnaire, and both together) against no screening (control group) in 2,251 older veterans. The effectiveness measure for each group was the proportion of hearing aid use 1 year after screening. The audiology cost measure included costs of hearing loss screening and audiology care for 1 year after screening. Incremental costeffectiveness was the audiology cost of additional hearing aid use for each screening group compared with the control group. The mean total audiology cost per patient was $77.04, $122.70, $121.37, and $157.08 for the control, otoscope, questionnaire, and dual screening groups, respectively. The tone-emitting otoscope appears to be the most cost-effective approach for hearing loss screening, with a significant increase in hearing aid use 1 year after screening (2.8%) and an insignificant incremental cost-effectiveness of $1,439.00 per additional hearing aid user compared with the control group. For this population of older veterans, screening for hearing loss with the toneemitting otoscope is cost-effective.

show abstract

Randomized Trial of Amplification Strategies

Cited by 76 publications

References 27 publications

Hearing Loss in an Aging American Population: Extent, Impact, and Management

Hearing Loss in an Aging American Population: Extent, Impact, and Management

Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality

Long-term cost effectiveness of screening strategies for hearing loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About