Verification of Improved Patient Outcomes With a Partially Implantable Hearing Aid, The SOUNDTEC Direct Hearing System

Roland, Peter S.; Shoup, Angela G.; Shea, M. Coyle; Richey, Hyla S.; Jones, Dwynwen

doi:10.1097/00005537-200110000-00002

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The observational studies that mentioned the Hawthorne effect as an explanation for some of their outcomes were all good quality studies (Table ). Five RCTs were of poor quality, mainly due to personnel not being blinded to the intervention and one was of fair quality as shown in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hawthorne effect on surgical studies

Demetriou

Smith³

et al. 2019

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Hawthorne effect or ‘observer effect’ describes a change in normal behaviour when individuals are aware they are being observed. This may have an impact on effect estimates in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Hawthorne effect had been recorded as a risk of bias in surgical studies. Methods A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses compliant literature search was conducted till March 2019. Eligible studies included those reporting or not reporting the Hawthorne effect in surgical studies from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, BNI, HMIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Two reviewers independently reviewed the papers, extracted data and appraised study methods using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were analysed descriptively. Results A total of 842 papers were identified, of which 16 were eligible. Six (37%) observational studies were identified with the aim of measuring the Hawthorne effect on their outcome with five reporting that the Hawthorne effect was responsible for the improvements in outcomes and one reporting no change in outcome due to the Hawthorne effect. Ten (63%) studies were identified, of which eight used the Hawthorne effect as an explanation to improvements seen in the control group or their secondary outcomes and two to compare their results with other studies. Conclusion There is considerable between‐study heterogeneity on how the Hawthorne effect relates to surgical outcomes. Further consideration on reporting and considering the importance of the Hawthorne effect in the design of surgical trials is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hawthorne effect on surgical studies

Demetriou

Smith³

et al. 2019

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, because the transducer directly drives the ossicles near the cochlea, signal degradation and distortion effects related to anatomical and physiological characteristics of the ear canal and tympanic membrane are reduced . Several studies have demonstrated that functional gain and speech recognition improvement with MEIs is equivalent to or better than optimally fitted hearing aids, whereas patient‐perceived outcome measures show that active MEIs provide superior sound quality, reduced occlusion and feedback, and improved patient satisfaction …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating speech perception of the MAXUM middle ear implant versus speech perception under inserts

Dyer

Spearman²,

Spearman³

et al. 2017

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More than 120 English language studies have been published in which researchers have used the APHAB as an assessment tool to measure the appropriateness and patterns of subjective performance for a variety of audiologic interventions. These interventions include hearing aid fitting procedures (e.g., Moore et al 2005;Gatehouse et al 2006;Shi et al 2007) and cochlear implant fitting strategies (e.g., Beynon et al 2003;Litovsky et al 2006;Gifford et al 2007) as well as methods of fitting nonconventional hearing aids such as middle ear implants, partially implantable hearing aids, and boneanchored hearing aids (e.g., Fraysse et al 2001;Roland et al 2001;Hol et al 2004). The APHAB also has been used to predict hearing aid use (e.g., Freyaldenhoven et al 2008) and for evaluating relationships between acceptable noise levels and subjective outcome measures for hearing aid and cochlear implant users (e.g., Saxon et al 2001;Freyaldenhoven et al 2008;Plyer et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of APHAB Norms for WDRC Hearing Aids and Comparisons with Original Norms

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overall, problems understanding amplified speech did not decrease in frequency when hearing aids transitioned from linear to compression processing; however, the compression capabilities of current hearing aids (with a possible contribution from noise reduction algorithms) have resulted in less negative reactions to amplified environmental sounds. This suggests that modern technology has ameliorated (to some extent) the common complaint that hearing aids cause many everyday sounds to become objectionably loud. Although the results of this study suggest that the advantages of improved technology do not lie in the domains of improved subjective speech communication performance, substantial improvement in the rate of successful adjustment to hearing aids between the 1995 and 2005 subject groups provides evidence that modern hearing aid technology has produced progress in other outcome domains.

show abstract

Verification of Improved Patient Outcomes With a Partially Implantable Hearing Aid, The SOUNDTEC Direct Hearing System

Abstract: Partially implantable hearing aids may address some of the limitations of traditional amplification systems.

Cited by 35 publications

References 4 publications

Hawthorne effect on surgical studies

Hawthorne effect on surgical studies

Evaluating speech perception of the MAXUM middle ear implant versus speech perception under inserts

Development of APHAB Norms for WDRC Hearing Aids and Comparisons with Original Norms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About