CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Semin Hear 2022; 43(04): 301-316
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758375
Review Article

Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Results from the MarkeTrak 2022 Survey: Importance of Features and Hearing Care Professionals

Erin M. Picou
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations


The hearing aid market is rapidly evolving with advancements in features and potential changes in service delivery models, including the new over-the-counter device category. Data from the MarkeTrak 2022 survey indicate most hearing aid owners report regular quality-of-life benefits from hearing aids, even more than in previous surveys. The increased likelihood of hearing aid benefits might be attributable to modern hearing aid features advancements, such as wireless connectivity and rechargeable batteries. Hearing aid satisfaction rates have been relatively stable over the years, indicating that more than 80% of hearing aid owners are satisfied with their devices. Hearing aid satisfaction rates do not appreciably vary by fitting channel; hearing aid owners fitted in person, fitted remotely, or self-fit are similarly likely to report high satisfaction with their device. However, only respondents in the in-person channel gave establishment ratings (reflecting their willingness to recommend) that resulted and reflected a positive net promoter score. Given the potential for net promoter scores to be related to brand growth and customer loyalty, this finding has implications for the development of over-the-counter hearing aid service-delivery models. Additional work is warranted to explore the factors that negatively affect hearing aid owners' satisfaction with the companies delivering limited services.

Financial Disclosures

None to report.

Publication History

Article published online:
01 December 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

  • References

  • 1 Humes LE, Wilson DL, Barlow NN, Garner C. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45 (04) 772-782
  • 2 Dornhoffer JR, Meyer TA, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Assessment of hearing aid benefit using patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Audiol Neurotol 2020; 25 (04) 215-223
  • 3 Kitterick PT, Ferguson MA. Hearing aids and health-related quality of life in adults with hearing loss. JAMA 2018; 319 (21) 2225-2226
  • 4 Brodie A, Smith B, Ray J. The impact of rehabilitation on quality of life after hearing loss: a systematic review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275 (10) 2435-2440
  • 5 Wong LL, Hickson L, McPherson B. Hearing aid satisfaction: What does research from the past 20 years say?. Trends Amplif 2003; 7 (04) 117-161
  • 6 Convery E, Keidser G, Hickson L, Meyer C. The relationship between hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (02) 274-284
  • 7 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
  • 8 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: contributions to self-report hearing aid outcomes. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 141-162
  • 9 Ferguson MA, Woolley A, Munro KJ. The impact of self-efficacy, expectations, and readiness on hearing aid outcomes. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl. 03) S34-S41
  • 10 Hickson L, Hamilton L, Orange S. Factors associated with hearing aid use. Aust J Audiol 1986; 8 (02) 37-41
  • 11 Jerram JC, Purdy SC. Technology, expectations, and adjustment to hearing loss: predictors of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (02) 64-79
  • 12 Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1994; 15 (01) 30-49
  • 13 Wilson C, Stephens D. Reasons for referral and attitudes toward hearing aids: do they affect outcome?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003; 28 (02) 81-84
  • 14 Kemker BE, Holmes AE. Analysis of prefitting versus postfitting hearing aid orientation using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (04) 311-323
  • 15 Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 768-778
  • 16 National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Hearing Health Care for Adults: Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016
  • 17 Reed NS, Betz J, Kendig N, Korczak M, Lin FR. Personal sound amplification products vs a conventional hearing aid for speech understanding in noise. JAMA 2017; 318 (01) 89-90
  • 18 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
  • 19 Brody L, Wu YH, Stangl E. A comparison of personal sound amplification products and hearing aids in ecologically relevant test environments. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (04) 581-593
  • 20 Sabin AT, Van Tasell DJ, Rabinowitz B, Dhar S. Validation of a self-fitting method for over-the-counter hearing aids. Trends Hear 2020; 24: 2331216519900589
  • 21 Chen CH, Huang CY, Cheng HL. et al. Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: a systematic review with meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2022; 46: 101378
  • 22 Humes LE, Kinney DL, Main AK, Rogers SE. A follow-up clinical trial evaluating the consumer-decides service delivery model. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (01) 69-84
  • 23 Keidser G, Convery E. Outcomes with a self-fitting hearing aid. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518768958
  • 24 Groth J, Ruggles D, Ellison J. Sizing up hearing aids in the 21st century: is there still room for improvement. Audiology Online. Accessed June 1, 2022 at:
  • 25 Picou EM, Roberts RA, Angley G, Ricketts TA. Applying the hearing aid fitting standard to selection for adults. Semin Hear 2022; 43 (02) 66-78
  • 26 Cox RM, Schwartz KS, Noe CM, Alexander GC. Preference for one or two hearing AIDS among adult patients. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (02) 181-197
  • 27 Glyde H, Dillon H, Young T, Seeto M, Roup C. Determining unilateral or bilateral hearing aid preference in adults: a prospective study. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (05) 341-349
  • 28 Manchaiah V, Picou EM, Bailey A, Rodrigo H. Consumer ratings of the most desirable hearing aid attributes. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (08) 537-546
  • 29 Bridges JF, Lataille AT, Buttorff C, White S, Niparko JK. Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (01) 40-48
  • 30 Zhang X, Yu P, Yan J. Patients' adoption of the e-appointment scheduling service: a case study in primary healthcare. In: Grain H, Martin-Sanchez F, Schaper L. eds. Investing in E-Health: People, Knowledge and Technology for a Healthy Future. The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2014: 176-181
  • 31 Junod Perron N, Dao MD, Righini NC. et al. Text-messaging versus telephone reminders to reduce missed appointments in an academic primary care clinic: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13 (01) 125
  • 32 Rimmer JH, Wang E, Pellegrini CA, Lullo C, Gerber BS. Telehealth weight management intervention for adults with physical disabilities: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 92 (12) 1084-1094
  • 33 Ansell D, Crispo JAG, Simard B, Bjerre LM. Interventions to reduce wait times for primary care appointments: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 (01) 295
  • 34 Moyal A. The feminine culture of the telephone. People, patterns and policy. Prometheus 1989; 7 (01) 5-31
  • 35 Aledavood T, López E, Roberts SG. et al. Daily rhythms in mobile telephone communication. PLoS One 2015; 10 (09) e0138098
  • 36 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VI: 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. Hearing Review. 2002; 9 (10) 14-25 , 45
  • 37 Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. Do experienced hearing aid users know how to use their hearing AIDS correctly?. Am J Audiol 2009; 18 (01) 69-76
  • 38 Cashman MZ, Rossman RN, Abel SM. A comparison of three modes of hearing aid-telephone coupling. J Otolaryngol 1982; 11 (04) 239-247
  • 39 Sorri M, Piiparinen P, Huttunen K. et al. Hearing aid users benefit from induction loop when using digital cellular phones. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (02) 119-132
  • 40 Picou EM, Ricketts TA. Efficacy of hearing-aid based telephone strategies for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (01) 59-70
  • 41 Kochkin S, Sterkens J, Compton-Conley C. et al. Consumer perceptions of the impact of inductively looped venues on the utility of their hearing devices. The Hearing Review. 2014; 35 (05) 16-26
  • 42 Ross CK, Frommelt G, Hazelwood L, Chang RW. The role of expectations in patient satisfaction with medical care. J Health Care Mark 1987; 7 (04) 16-26
  • 43 Baron-Epel O, Dushenat M, Friedman N. Evaluation of the consumer model: relationship between patients' expectations, perceptions and satisfaction with care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13 (04) 317-323
  • 44 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (07) 368-382 , quiz 407
  • 45 Picou EM. MarkeTrak 10 (MT10) survey results demonstrate high satisfaction with and benefits from hearing aids. Semin Hear 2020; 41 (01) 21-36
  • 46 Manchaiah V, Kelly-Campbell RJ, Bellon-Harn ML, Beukes EW. Quality, readability, and suitability of hearing health-related materials: a descriptive review. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (03) 513-527
  • 47 Caposecco A, Hickson L, Meyer C. Hearing aid user guides: suitability for older adults. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (Suppl. 01) S43-S51
  • 48 McMullan A, Kelly-Campbell RJ, Wise K. Improving hearing aid self-efficacy and utility through revising a hearing aid user guide: a pilot study. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (01) 45-56
  • 49 Gomez R, Ferguson M. Improving self-efficacy for hearing aid self-management: the early delivery of a multimedia-based education programme in first-time hearing aid users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (04) 272-281
  • 50 Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P. et al. Assessing treatment outcomes using a single question: the net promoter score. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (05) 622-628
  • 51 Reichheld F. The Ultimate Question 2.0 (revised and expanded edition): How net Promoter Companies Thrive in a Customer-Driven World. Harvard Business Review Press. 2011
  • 52 Van Doorn J, Leeflang PS, Tijs M. Satisfaction as a predictor of future performance: a replication. Int J Res Mark 2013; 30 (03) 314-318
  • 53 Pingitore G, Morgan NA, Rego LL, Gigliotti A, Meyers J. The single-question trap. Marketing Research 2007;19(02):
  • 54 Fisher NI, Kordupleski RE. Good and bad market research: a critical review of Net Promoter Score. Appl Stochastic Models Bus Ind 2019; 35 (01) 138-151
  • 55 Ekberg K, Timmer BH, Francis A, Hickson L. Improving the implementation of family-centred care in adult audiology appointments: a feasibility intervention study. Int J Audiol 2022; DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2022.2095536.