Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Fit vs Audiologist-Fit Hearing Aids

Author:

De Sousa Karina C.12,Manchaiah Vinaya12345,Moore David R.67,Graham Marien A.8,Swanepoel De Wet123

Affiliation:

1. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

2. Virtual Hearing Lab, Collaborative Initiative Between the University of Colorado and the University of Pretoria, Aurora, Colorado

3. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora

4. UCHealth Hearing and Balance, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora

5. Department of Speech and Hearing, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

6. Communication Sciences Research Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

7. Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

8. Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Abstract

ImportanceWith rising interest in over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids as an alternative to traditional audiologist-fit devices, understanding their long-term efficacy is crucial. However, given the novelty of the US Food and Drug Administration category of OTC hearing aids, minimal evidence currently supports their long-term efficacy.ObjectiveTo compare the long-term self-reported outcomes at 8 months of self-fit OTC hearing aids to the same hearing aids fit by audiologists.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsBuilding on a previous randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a number of the original participants that were not lost to follow-up. Participants were initially divided into those with self-fit OTC hearing aids and those with audiologist-fit devices. Approximately 8 months after fitting, participants completed self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. The original noninferiority trial was conducted at the University of Pretoria in South Africa from April 2022 to August 2022. The current analysis took place between July 7, 2023, to November 20, 2023.InterventionsIn the original trial, participants in the self-fit device group received a pair of OTC hearing aids and independently fit them with remote support as needed. The audiologist-fit device group received the same hearing aids fit by a certified audiologist using best practices.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).ResultsOf 64 participants in the trial, 44 participants were included in the extension study (21 [47.7%] in the audiologist-fit group; 23 [52.3%] in the self-fit group). The mean (SD) age of these participants was 63.0 (13.2) years, and 21 (47.7%) were male. At the long-term follow-up, self-fit and audiologist-fit groups showed no significant differences in the APHAB global score (mean difference, 0.02 [95% CI, −7.1 to 7.1]; Cohen d, 0.01 [95% CI, −0.5 to 0.5]) or the IOI-HA total score (mean difference, 1.5 [95% CI, −1.4 to 4.4]; Cohen d, 0.3 [95% CI, −0.2 to 0.8]). From 6 weeks to 8 months, no clinically meaningful group-time interaction was found between groups for the APHAB global score (Cohen d, 0.1 [95% CI, −0.2 to 0.3]), but a significant interaction for the IOI-HA total score was found (Cohen d, −0.6 [95% CI, −0.8 to −0.3]), with the self-fit group generally performing better.ConclusionThis comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated that self-fit OTC hearing aids can offer comparable long-term benefits to audiologist-fit hearing aids for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3