Download PDF
Semin Hear 2018; 39(02): 158-171
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641742
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Benefits from, Satisfaction with, and Self-Efficacy for Advanced Digital Hearing Aids in Users with Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Carole E. Johnson
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes (HERO) Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1200 N. Stonewall, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Anna Marie Jilla
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes (HERO) Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1200 N. Stonewall, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jeffrey L. Danhauer
2   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
,
J. Connor Sullivan
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes (HERO) Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1200 N. Stonewall, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Kristin R. Sanchez
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes (HERO) Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1200 N. Stonewall, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 June 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Little evidence is available regarding outcomes of advanced digital technology (ADT) hearing aid wearers with mild sensorineural hearing loss (MSNHL). The purpose of this article is to report the characteristics of and outcomes for this population. A cross-sectional research design was employed with 56 participants from a private practice setting. The International Outcomes Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids (MARS-HA) were completed, scored, and compared with normative data. Results revealed that ADT aids were worn 10.5 hours/day, were mostly advanced to premium (55%), had an average cost per aid of $2,138 (SD = $840), and provided significant benefit (IOI-HA overall score: mean = 4.1; SD = 0.6) and satisfaction (SADL global score: mean = 5.4; SD = 0.8) to users who had good overall self-efficacy (MARS-HA composite score: mean = 81.7; SD = 12.8). Patients were most dissatisfied with and had the least self-efficacy for managing background noise and advanced handling of their devices. ADT hearing aid users with MSNHL achieved excellent outcomes, but ongoing follow-up and counseling from hearing health care providers may be important for successful management of background noise and mastery of advanced handling skills.

Keywords

mild hearing loss - adults - advanced digital hearing aids
 

  • References

  • 1 Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL. , et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force On the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (02) 151-183
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Keller BK, Morton JL, Thomas VS, Potter JF. The effect of visual and hearing impairments on functional status. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47 (11) 1319-1325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Dreschler WA, Boymans M, Festen JM. International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from The Netherlands. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lin FR, Albert M. Hearing loss and dementia - who is listening?. Aging Ment Health 2014; 18 (06) 671-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lin FR, Yaffe K, Xia J. , et al; Health ABC Study Group. Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (04) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Hearing loss and older adults. 2016. Available at: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing-loss-older-adults . Accessed June 12, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Abrams HB, Kihm J. An Introduction to MarkeTrak IX: A new baseline for the hearing aid market. Hearing Review 2015; 22 (06) 16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bainbridge KE, Ramachandran V. Hearing aid use among older U.S. adults; the national health and nutrition examination survey, 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (03) 289-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Davis A, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulos I. Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (42) 1-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blazer DG, Domnitz S, Liverman CT. Hearing Health Care for Adults: Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Ellis BB, Jilla AM. Hearing aid benefit in patients with mild sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (04) 293-310
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Timmer BH, Hickson L, Launer S. Adults with mild hearing impairment: Are we meeting the challenge?. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (11) 786-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Donahue A, Dubno JR, Beck L. Guest editorial: accessible and affordable hearing health care for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 2-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 World Health Organization. WHO Global Estimates on Prevalence of Hearing Loss: Mortality and Burden of Diseases and Prevention of Blindness and Deafness. Geneva: WHO; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Goman AM, Lin FR. Prevalence of hearing loss by severity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2016; 106 (10) 1820-1822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Smith W. , et al. Validation of self-reported hearing loss. The Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Int J Epidemiol 2001; 30 (06) 1371-1378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: The key influencing factors in hearing aid purchase intent. Hear Rev 2012; 19 (03) 12-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Holdren JP, Lander E, Press W, Savitz M. Aging America and Hearing Loss: Imperative of Improved Hearing Technologies. Washington, DC: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; 2015: 1-15
    Google Scholar
  • 19 U.S. Congress. H.R. 2430: FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. August 29, 2017. Available at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2430/summary . Accessed November 19, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Over-the-Counter (OTC) Hearing Devices. Issue Statement. January 26, 2017. Available at: https://www.audiology.org/publications/over-counter-otc-hearing-devices . Accessed November 8, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cox RM, Johnson JA, Xu J. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life I: The patients' perspective. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (04) e224-e237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life II: Speech understanding and listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (05) 529-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life III. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 746-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American Academy of Audiology. Guidelines for the Audiologic Management of Adult Hearing Impairment. Reston, VA: American Academy of Audiology; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 25 American National Standards Institute - Acoustical Society of America. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. Melville, NY: American National Standards Institute - Acoustical Society of America; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Jilla AM. The Visual Analog Scale of Hearing Aid Use (VASuse). Oklahoma City, OK: Jilla AM; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (01) 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 West RL, Smith SL. Development of a hearing aid self-efficacy questionnaire. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (12) 759-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Beyer CM. Norms for the international outcome inventory for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (08) 403-413
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Henry JA, Frederick M, Sell S, Griest S, Abrams H. Validation of a novel combination hearing aid and tinnitus therapy device. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (01) 42-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Parazzini M, Del Bo L, Jastreboff M, Tognola G, Ravazzani P. Open ear hearing aids in tinnitus therapy: An efficacy comparison with sound generators. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (08) 548-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Humes LE, Rogers SE, Quigley TM, Main AK, Kinney DL, Herring C. The effects of service-delivery model and purchase price on hearing-aid outcomes in older adults: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (01) 53-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Smith SL, Noe CM, Alexander GC. Evaluation of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids in a veteran sample. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (06) 374-380
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Timmer BHB, Hickson L, Launer S. Hearing aid use and mild hearing impairment: Learnings from big data. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (08) 731-741
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Uriarte M, Denzin L, Dunstan A, Sellars J, Hickson L. Measuring hearing aid outcomes using the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian data. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (06) 383-402
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hosford-Dunn H, Halpern J. Clinical application of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life scale in private practice I: statistical, content, and factorial validity. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 523-539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Gavin RB, Karns SR, Reith AC, Lopez IP. The “hearing aid effect” 2005: a rigorous test of the visibility of new hearing aid styles. Am J Audiol 2005; 14 (02) 169-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rauterkus EP, Palmer CV. The hearing aid effect in 2013. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (09) 893-903
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Johnson CE, Danhauer JL. Comments regarding Rauterkus and Palmer (2014). J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (08) 741-743
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 ASHA. ASHA Position Statement on Policy Related to Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids. February 14, 2017. Available at: https://www.asha.org/News/2017/ASHA-Position-Statement-on-Policy-Related-to-Over-the-Counter-Hearing-Aids/ . Accessed November 8, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar