Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in First-Time and Experienced Hearing Aid Users: An Analysis of Five Predetermined Predictability Categories through Audiometric and Speech Testing

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of our investigation was to explore the relationship between unaided pure-tone and speech audiometry and self-reported aided performance measured according to five predetermined COSI categories among first-time hearing aid users and experienced hearing aid users. Methods: Data from 286 patients were retrospectively evaluated. We divided the sample into first-time hearing aid users (G1) and experienced hearing aid users (G2). The correlation between unaided tonal and speech audiometry and five preliminary selected client-oriented scale of improvement (COSI) categories was studied. Results: A greater percentage of hearing aid users aged >80 years and a higher prevalence of severe-to-profound hearing loss in G2 group were observed (p < 0.05). For the total cohort, a mean hearing threshold of 60.37 ± 18.77 db HL emerged in the right ear, and 59.97 ± 18.76 db HL was detected in the left ear (p > 0.05). A significant statistical difference was observed in the group of first-time hearing aid users for the “Television/Radio at normal volume” item, where patients with a lower speech intellection threshold (SIT) were associated with higher COSI scores (p = 0.019). Studying the relationship between the speech reception threshold (SRT) and the COSI item “conversation with 1 or 2 in noise” evidenced worse speech audiometry in patients who scored ≤2 among experienced hearing aid users (p = 0.00012); a higher mean 4–8 kHz frequencies threshold for the better ear was found within the G2 group among those who scored ≤2 in the COSI item “conversation with 1 or 2 in quiet” (p = 0.043). Conclusions: Our study confirms a poor correlation between unaided tonal and speech audiometry and self-reported patient assessment. Although we included only five COSI categories in this study, it is clear that unaided audiometric tests may drive the choice of proper hearing rehabilitation, but their value in predicting the benefit of hearing aids remains limited.