Download PDF
Semin Hear 2023; 44(03): 328-350
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769742
Review Article

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

Melanie A. Ferguson
1   Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia
2   School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
,
Robert H. Eikelboom
1   Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia
2   School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
3   Centre for Ear Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
5   Department of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
,
Cathy M. Sucher
1   Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia
2   School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
3   Centre for Ear Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
,
David W. Maidment
4   School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
,
Rebecca J. Bennett
1   Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia
2   School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
3   Centre for Ear Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There are many examples of remote technologies that are clinically effective and provide numerous benefits to adults with hearing loss. Despite this, the uptake of remote technologies for hearing healthcare has been both low and slow until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a key driver for change globally. The time is now right to take advantage of the many benefits that remote technologies offer, through clinical, consumer, or hybrid services and channels. These include greater access and choice, better interactivity and engagement, and tailoring of technologies to individual needs, leading to clients who are better informed, enabled, and empowered to self-manage their hearing loss. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence-base across a range of remote technologies along the hearing health journey. This includes qualitative, as well as quantitative, methods to ensure the end-users' voice is at the core of the research, thereby promoting person-centered principles. Most of these remote technologies are available and some are already in use, albeit not widespread. Finally, whenever new technologies or processes are implemented into services, be they clinical, hybrid, or consumer, careful consideration needs to be given to the required behavior change of the key people (e.g., clients and service providers) to facilitate and optimize implementation.

Keywords

remote technologies - connected hearing healthcare - service delivery models - consumer channels - over-the-counter - implementation science, behavior change


Publication History

Article published online:
21 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Swanepoel DW, Hall JW. A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemedicine journal and e-health. Am Telemed Assoc 2010; 16 (02) 181-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Glista D, Ferguson M, Muñoz K, Davies-Venn E. Connected hearing healthcare: shifting from theory to practice. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (Suppl. 01) S1-S3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ferguson M, Maidment D, Henshaw H, Heffernan E. Evidence-Based Interventions for Adult Aural Rehabilitation: That Was Then, This Is Now. Thieme Medical Publishers; 2019: 068-084
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Goudey B, Plant K, Kiral I. et al. A multicenter analysis of factors associated with hearing outcome for 2,735 adults with cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 233 12165211037525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Eikelboom R, Bennett R, Brennan M. Tele-Audiology: An Opportunity for Expansion of Hearing Healthcare Services in Australia. Perth, WA: Ear Science Institute Australia; 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Montano J, Angley G, Ryan-Bane C. et al. eAudiology: shifting from theory to practice. Hearing Review 2018; 25 (09) 20-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ferguson M, Glista D, Davies-Venn E. Connected health in audiology: the future of hearing healthcare. ENT Audiol News 2019; 28 (05) 47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 NASEM. Hearing Healthcare for Adults. Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability. NASEM; 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brice S, Saunders E, Edwards B. Scoping review for a global hearing care framework: matching theory with practice. Semin Hear 2023; 44 (03) 213-231
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Penno K, Zakis J. Exploring hearing care technology from clinic to capability. Semin Hear 2023; 44 (03) 287-301
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Muñoz K, Nagaraj NK, Nichols N. Applied tele-audiology research in clinical practice during the past decade: a scoping review. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (Suppl. 01) S4-S12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ferguson M, Leighton P, Brandreth M, Wharrad H. Development of a multimedia educational programme for first-time hearing aid users: a participatory design. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (08) 600-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Swanepoel DW, Hall JW. Making audiology work during COVID-19 and beyond. Hear J 2020; 73 (06) 20-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 AIHHP, BAA, BSA, BSHAA. Audiology and Otology Guidance during COVID-19. United Kingdom; 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ferguson MA, Maidment DW, Gomez R, Coulson N, Wharrad H. The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (Suppl. 01) S30-S41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Allen D, Ferguson M, Pang J. et al. Clinical outcomes of Hearing Australia in-person and remote services 2020. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://www.nal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Clinical-outcomes-of-Hearing-Australia-inperson-and-remote-services.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Eikelboom RH, Bennett RJ, Manchaiah V. et al. International survey of audiologists during the COVID-19 pandemic: use of and attitudes to telehealth. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (04) 283-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Abrams HB, Callahan CM. Health behavior and motivational engagement models can explain and modify tele-audiology uptake. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (3S): 1043-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Audiology Australia. Teleaudiology Guidelines. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://teleaudiologyguidelines.org.au/teleaudiology-guidelines/
    PubMed
  • 20 Ratanjee-Vanmali H, Swanepoel W, Laplante-Lévesque A. Patient uptake, experience, and satisfaction using web-based and face-to-face hearing health services: process evaluation study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (03) e15875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tao KFM, Swanepoel DW, Brennan-Jones CG, Jayakody DMP, Moriera TC, Coetzee L, Eikelboom RH. Teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations for adults: a single blinded randomised control trial and cohort study. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (S10): S49-S60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Arnold ML, Schwartz B, Neil H, Chisolm TH, Sanchez VA. Feasibility and assessment of a hybrid audiology service delivery model for older adult hearing aid users: a pilot study. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (3S): 892-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Woods M, Burgess Z. Report of the Independent Review of the Hearing Services Program. 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 HHSC. Roadmap for Hearing Health. HHSC; 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Montague M, Borland R, Sinclair C. Slip! Slop! Slap! and SunSmart, 1980-2000: skin cancer control and 20 years of population-based campaigning. Health Educ Behav 2001; 28 (03) 290-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alperstein S, Beach EF. Prioritizing the target audience for a hearing awareness campaign in Australia using the TARPARE model. Health Promot Int 2022; daac041
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Coulson NS, Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Heffernan E. Applying theories of health behaviour and change to hearing health research: time for a new approach. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl. 03) S99-S104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dawood N, Mahomed Asmail F, Louw C, Swanepoel W. mHealth hearing screening for children by non-specialist health workers in communities. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (Suppl. 01) S23-S29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Laplante-Lévesque A, Hickson L, Worrall L. Stages of change in adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time: application of the transtheoretical model in audiologic rehabilitation. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (04) 447-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Brennan-Jones CG, Taljaard DS, Brennan-Jones SE, Bennett RJ, Swanepoel W, Eikelboom RH. Self-reported hearing loss and manual audiometry: a rural versus urban comparison. Aust J Rural Health 2016; 24 (02) 130-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Taljaard DS, Leishman NF, Eikelboom RH. Personal listening devices and the prevention of noise induced hearing loss in children: the Cheers for Ears Pilot Program. Noise Health 2013; 15 (65) 261-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 WHO. Check your hearing. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/hearwho
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Folmer RL, Vachhani J, McMillan GP, Watson C, Kidd GR, Feeney MP. Validation of a computer-administered version of the digits-in-noise test for hearing screening in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (02) 161-169
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 RNID. Take our free hearing check. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/take-online-hearing-check/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dubno JR, Majumder P, Bettger JP. et al. A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2022; 20 (01) 26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Simpson AN, Matthews LJ, Cassarly C, Dubno JR. Time from hearing aid candidacy to hearing aid adoption: a longitudinal cohort study. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (03) 468-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Saunders GH, Oliver F. Impact of hearing loss on communication during remote health care encounters. Telemed J E Health 2022; 28 (09) 1350-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Isautier JM, Copp T, Ayre J. et al. People's experiences and satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (12) e24531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Galvin K, Sucher CM, Bennett RJ, Ebrahimi-Madiseh A, Crosland P, Eikelboom RH. Willingness to consider and to pay for a variety of telehealth services amongst adult hearing clinic clients. Int J Audiol 2023; 62 (03) 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Gomez R, Habib A, Maidment DW, Ferguson MA. Smartphone-connected hearing aids enable and empower self-management of hearing loss: a qualitative interview study underpinned by the behavior change wheel. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (03) 921-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ridgway J, Hickson L, Lind C. Autonomous motivation is associated with hearing aid adoption. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (07) 476-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 BSA. Common Principles of Rehabilitation for Adults in Audiology Services. British Society of Audiology. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Practice-Guidance-Common-Principles-of-Rehabilitation-for-Adults-in-Audiology-Services-2016.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Aazh H. Feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of motivational interviewing on hearing-aid use. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (03) 149-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ferguson M, Maidment D, Russell N, Gregory M, Nicholson R. Motivational engagement in first-time hearing aid users: a feasibility study. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl. 03) S23-S33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Ekberg K, Barr C. Identifying clients' readiness for hearing rehabilitation within initial audiology appointments: a pilot intervention study. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (08) 606-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Maidment D, Heffernan E, Ferguson M. A randomised controlled clinical trial to assess the benefits of a telecare tool delivered prior to the initial hearing assessment. Int J Audiol 2023; 62 (05) 400-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Heffernan E, Maidment DW, Ferguson MA. A qualitative study showing that a telecare tool can have benefits before and during the initial hearing assessment appointment. Int J Audiol 2023; 62 (04) 295-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Ferguson MA, Kitterick PT, Chong LY, Edmondson-Jones M, Barker F, Hoare DJ. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9 (09) CD012023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 NICE. Hearing loss in adults: assessment and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (01) 15-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Potgieter JM, Swanepoel W, Myburgh HC, Hopper TC, Smits C. Development and validation of a smartphone-based digits-in-noise hearing test in South African English. Int J Audiol 2015; 55 (07) 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Van den Borre E, Denys S, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. The digit triplet test: a scoping review. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (12) 946-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Swanepoel D, Clark JL. Hearing healthcare in remote or resource-constrained environments. J Laryngol Otol 2019; 133 (01) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Eksteen S, Launer S, Kuper H, Eikelboom RH, Bastawrous A, Swanepoel W. Hearing and vision screening for preschool children using mobile technology, South Africa. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97 (10) 672-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lancaster P, Krumm M, Ribera J, Klich R. Remote hearing screenings via telehealth in a rural elementary school. Am J Audiol 2008; 17 (02) 114-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mahomed F, Swanepoel W, Eikelboom RH, Soer M. Validity of automated threshold audiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (06) 745-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Wasmann JW, Pragt L, Eikelboom R, Swanepoel W. Digital approaches to automated and machine learning assessments of hearing: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24 (02) e32581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BC. AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (03) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel DW, Motakef S, Upson GS. Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (05) 342-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Swanepoel DW, Matthysen C, Eikelboom RH, Clark JL, Hall III JW. Pure-tone audiometry outside a sound booth using earphone attenuation, integrated noise monitoring, and automation. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (11) 777-785
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Thompson GP, Sladen DP, Borst BJH, Still OL. Accuracy of a tablet audiometer for measuring behavioral hearing thresholds in a clinical population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 153 (05) 838-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 van Tonder J, Swanepoel DW, Mahomed-Asmail F, Myburgh H, Eikelboom RH. Automated smartphone threshold audiometry: validity and time efficiency. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (03) 200-208
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Bornman M, Swanepoel DW, De Jager LB, Eikelboom RH. Extended high-frequency smartphone audiometry: validity and reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (03) 217-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Brennan-Jones CG, Eikelboom RH, Bennett RJ, Tao KF, Swanepoel DW. Asynchronous interpretation of manual and automated audiometry: agreement and reliability. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24 (01) 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Almufarrij I, Dillon H, Dawes P. et al. Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review. Int J Audiol 2022; 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Ciccia AH, Whitford B, Krumm M, McNeal K. Improving the access of young urban children to speech, language and hearing screening via telehealth. J Telemed Telecare 2011; 17 (05) 240-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Ramatsoma H, Koekemoer D. Validation of a bilateral simultaneous computer-based tympanometer. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (03) 491-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Alenezi EM, Jajko K, Reid A. et al. The reliability of video otoscopy recordings and still images in the asynchronous diagnosis of middle-ear disease. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (11) 917-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Myburgh HC, Jose S, Swanepoel DW, Laurent C. Towards low cost automated smartphone-and cloud-based otitis media diagnosis. Biomed Signal Process Control 2018; 39: 34-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Sandström J, Myburgh H, Laurent C, Swanepoel W, Lundberg T. A machine learning approach to screen for otitis media using digital otoscope images labelled by an expert panel. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12 (06) 1318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Alenezi EM, Jajko K, Reid A. et al. Clinician-rated quality of video otoscopy recordings and still images for the asynchronous assessment of middle-ear disease. J Telemed Telecare 2021; X20987783
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Frisby C, Eikelboom RH, Mahomed-Asmail F. et al. Community-based adult hearing care provided by community healthcare workers using mHealth technologies. Glob Health Action 2022; 15 (01) 2095784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Boothroyd A. Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work?. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (02) 63-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Ferguson M, Maidment D, Henshaw H, Heffernan E. Evidence-based interventions for adult aural rehabilitation: that was then, this is now. Semin Hear 2019; 40 (01) 68-84
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Maidment DW, Amlani AM. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.; 2020: 254-265
    Google Scholar
  • 77 Maidment DW, Ali YHK, Ferguson MA. Applying the COM-B model to assess the usability of smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (05) 417-430
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Convery E, Keidser G, Hickson L, Meyer C. Factors associated with successful setup of a self-fitting hearing aid and the need for personalized support. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 794-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Convery E, Keidser G, McLelland M, Groth J. A smartphone app to facilitate remote patient-provider communication in hearing health care: usability and effect on hearing aid outcomes. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (06) 798-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6 (01) 42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Ng SL, Phelan S, Leonard M, Galster J. A qualitative case study of smartphone-connected hearing aids: influences on patients, clinicians, and patient–clinician interactions. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (06) 506-521
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Olson A, Maidment DW, Ferguson MA. Consensus on connected hearing health technologies and service delivery models in the UK: a Delphi review. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (04) 344-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Henshaw H, Clark DP, Kang S, Ferguson MA. Computer skills and internet use in adults aged 50-74 years: influence of hearing difficulties. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (04) e113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 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: 233 1216519900589
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Almufarrij I, Dillon H, Munro KJ. Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review. Int J Audiol 2022; 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Maidment DW, Heyes R, Gomez R, Coulson NS, Wharrad H, Ferguson MA. Evaluating a theoretically informed and co-created mHealth educational intervention for first-time hearing aid users: a qualitative interview study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8 (08) e17193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Gotowiec S, Larsson J, Incerti P. et al. Understanding patient empowerment along the hearing health journey. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (02) 148-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Ferguson M, Gotowiec S, Larsson J, Incerti P, Bennett R, Andrich D. Development of an outcome measure for empowerment for hearing loss. Presented at: Hearing Across the Lifespan; June 2022. Cernobbio, Italy:
    Google Scholar
  • 89 Glista D, Schnittker JA, Brice S. The modern hearing care landscape: toward the provision of personalized, dynamic, and adaptive care. Semin Hear 2023; 44 (03) 261-273
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Maidment DW, Barker AB, Xia J, Ferguson MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (10) 721-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Almufarrij I, Munro KJ, Dawes P, Stone MA, Dillon H. Direct-to-consumer hearing devices: capabilities, costs, and cosmetics. Trends Hear 2019; 23: 233 1216519858301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 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
  • 95 Urbanski D, Hernandez H, Oleson J, Wu YH. Toward a new evidence-based fitting paradigm for over-the-counter hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2021; 30 (01) 43-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Klyn NAM, Kleindienst Robler S, Bogle J. et al. CEDRA – a tool to help consumers assess risk for ear disease. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (06) 1261-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Kuerbis A, Mulliken A, Muench F, Moore AA, Gardner D. Older adults and mobile technology: factors that enhance and inhibit utilization in the context of behavioral health. Ment Heal Addict Res 2017; 2: 1-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Wu YH, Damnée S, Kerhervé H, Ware C, Rigaud AS. Bridging the digital divide in older adults: a study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clin Interv Aging 2015; 10: 193-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Loughrey DG, Kelly ME, Kelley GA, Brennan S, Lawlor BA. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 144 (02) 115-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DP, Moore DR. Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) e110-e121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Schow R, Nerbonne M. Introduction to Audiologic Rehabilitation. 5th ed.. Pearson Education; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 102 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS One 2013; 8 (05) e62836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H. Auditory training can improve working memory, attention and communication in adverse conditions for adults with hearing loss: perspective. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Henshaw H, Heinrich A, Tittle A, Ferguson M. Cogmed training does not generalize to real-world benefits for adult hearing aid users: results of a blinded, active-controlled randomized trial. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (03) 741-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Ferguson M, Henshaw H. How does auditory training work? Joined up thinking and listening. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (04) 237-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Lawrence BJ, Jayakody DMP, Henshaw H. et al. Auditory and cognitive training for cognition in adults with hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 233 1216518792096
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Training changes processing of speech cues in older adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. Reversal of age-related neural timing delays with training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110 (11) 4357-4362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Saunders GH, Smith SL, Chisolm TH, Frederick MT, McArdle RA, Wilson RH. A randomized control trial: Supplementing hearing aid use with listening and communication enhancement (LACE) auditory training. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (04) 381-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Tye-Murray N, Spehar B, Sommers M, Barcroft J. Auditory training with frequent communication partners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (04) 871-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Lowe SC, Henshaw H, Wild J, Ferguson MA. Evaluation of home-delivered live-voice auditory training for adult hearing aid users involving their communication partners: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Audiol 2023; 62 (01) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Convery E, Hickson L, Meyer C, Keidser G. Predictors of hearing loss self-management in older adults. Disabil Rehabil 2019; 41 (17) 2026-2035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Barker F, Mackenzie E, Elliott L, Jones S, de Lusignan S. Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (08) CD010342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Bahramian M, Najimi A, Omid A. Association between health literacy with knowledge, attitude, and performance of health-care providers in applying health literacy education strategies for health education delivery. J Educ Health Promot 2020; 9: 10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Ferguson M, Brandreth M, Brassington W, Leighton P, Wharrad H. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits of a multimedia educational programme for first-time hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (02) 123-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Maidment DW, Coulson NS, Wharrad H, Taylor M, Ferguson MA. The development of an mHealth educational intervention for first-time hearing aid users: combining theoretical and ecologically valid approaches. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (07) 492-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Gomez R, Ferguson M. Improving knowledge and self-efficacy for hearing aid self-management: the early delivery of a multimedia-based education program in first-time adult hearing aid users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (04) 272-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Malmberg M, Sundewall Thorén E, Öberg M, Lunner T, Andersson G, Kähäri K. Experiences of an Internet-based aural rehabilitation (IAR) program for hearing aid users: a qualitative study. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (08) 570-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Thorén ES, Öberg M, Wänström G, Andersson G, Lunner T. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of online rehabilitative intervention for adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (07) 452-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Malmberg M, Anióse K, Skans J, Öberg M. A randomised, controlled trial of clinically implementing online hearing support. Int J Audiol 2023; 62 (05) 472-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Meijerink JF, Pronk M, Lissenberg-Witte BI, Jansen V, Kramer SE. Effectiveness of a web-based SUpport PRogram (SUPR) for hearing aid users aged 50+: two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (09) e17927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Meijerink JFJ, Pronk M, Kramer SE. Experiences with and lessons learned from developing, implementing, and evaluating a support program for older hearing aid users and their communication partners in the hearing aid dispensing setting. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (3S): 638-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Kelly TB, Tolson D, Day T, McColgan G, Kroll T, Maclaren W. Older people's views on what they need to successfully adjust to life with a hearing aid. Health Soc Care Community 2013; 21 (03) 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Ferguson M, Brandreth M, Brassington W, Wharrad H. Information retention and overload in first-time hearing aid users: an interactive multimedia educational solution. Am J Audiol 2015; 24 (03) 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Bennett RJ, Eikelboom RH, Sucher CM, Ferguson M, Saunders GH. Barriers and facilitators to delivery of group audiological rehabilitation programs: a survey based on the COM-B model. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (02) 130-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Heffernan E, Coulson N, Henshaw H, Barry J, Ferguson M. Understanding the psychosocial experiences of adults with mild-moderate hearing loss: a qualitative study applying Leventhal's self-regulatory model. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl 3, Suppl 3): S3-S12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Barker AB, Leighton P, Ferguson MA. Coping together with hearing loss: a qualitative meta-synthesis of the psychosocial experiences of people with hearing loss and their communication partners. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (05) 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 128 Bennett RJ, Saulsman L, Eikelboom RH, Olaithe M. Coping with the social challenges and emotional distress associated with hearing loss: a qualitative investigation using Leventhal's self-regulation theory. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (05) 353-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Heffernan E, Withanachchi CM, Ferguson MA. ‘The worse my hearing got, the less sociable I got’: a qualitative study of patient and professional views of the management of social isolation and hearing loss. Age Ageing 2022; 51 (02) afac019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 130 Bott A, Saunders G. A scoping review of studies investigating hearing loss, social isolation and/or loneliness in adults. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (Suppl. 02) 30-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 131 Garnefski N, Kraaij V. Effects of a Cognitive Behavioral Self-help program on emotional problems for people with acquired hearing loss: a randomized controlled trial. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2012; 17 (01) 75-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 132 Molander P, Hesser H, Weineland S. et al. Internet-based acceptance and commitment therapy for psychological distress experienced by people with hearing problems: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Cogn Behav Ther 2018; 47 (02) 169-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 133 Bennett RJ, Donaldson S, Kelsall-Foreman I. et al. Addressing emotional and psychological problems associated with hearing loss: perspective of consumer and community representatives. Am J Audiol 2021; 30 (04) 1130-1138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 134 Bennett RJ, Kelsall-Foreman I, Donaldson S, Olaithe M, Saulsman L, Badcock JC. Exploring current practice, knowledge, and training needs for managing psychosocial concerns in the audiology setting: perspectives of audiologists, audiology reception staff, and managers. Am J Audiol 2021; 30 (03) 557-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 135 Young T, Pang J, Ferguson M. Hearing from you: design thinking in audiological research. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (3S): 1003-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 136 Maruthurkkara S, Allen A, Cullington H, Muff J, Arora K, Johnson S. Remote check test battery for cochlear implant recipients: proof of concept study. Int J Audiol 61 (06) 443-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 137 Sucher C, Bennett R, Coetzee L, Liew A, Ferguson M. Assessments in the cloud: integrating digital technologies into the cochlear implant clinic using implementation science. Presented at: Hearing Across the Lifespan; June 2022. Cernobbio, Italy:
    Google Scholar
  • 138 Cullington H, Kitterick P, Weal M, Margol-Gromada M. Feasibility of personalised remote long-term follow-up of people with cochlear implants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (04) e019640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 139 Medical Research Council. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. Medical Research Council; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 140 Maidment DW, Ferguson M. An application of the Medical Research Council's guidelines for evaluating complex interventions: a usability study assessing smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (3S): 474-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 141 Bennett RJ, Bucks RS, Saulsman L, Pachana NA, Eikelboom RH, Meyer CJ. Use of the Behaviour Change Wheel to design an intervention to improve the provision of mental wellbeing support within the audiology setting. Imp Sci Comm 2023; 4 (01) 1-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 142 Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA. et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021; 374: n2061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 143 Heffernan E, Coulson NS, Ferguson MA. Development of the Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) through consultation with adults with hearing loss, researchers, and clinicians: a content evaluation study. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (10) 791-799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 144 Nielsen AC, Rotger-Griful S, Kanstrup AM, Laplante-Lévesque A. User-innovated eHealth solutions for service delivery to older persons with hearing impairment. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (3S): 403-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 145 Burden RS, Galloway LN, Rothpletz AM, Glasheen KA, Preminger JE. The development of an internet-based decision coaching guide to encourage audiology care: the results of a participatory design approach. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (3S): 546-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 146 Henshaw H, Sharkey L, Crowe D, Ferguson M. Research priorities for mild-to-moderate hearing loss in adults. Lancet 2015; 386 (10009): 2140-2141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 147 Fackrell K, Stratmann L, Kennedy V. et al. Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind alliance hyperacusis priority setting partnership. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (11) e032178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 148 Ferguson M, Maidment D, Henshaw H, Gomez R. Knowledge is power: improving outcomes for patients, partners, and professionals in the digital age. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups 2019; 4 (01) 140-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 149 Bauer MS, Kirchner J. Implementation science: What is it and why should I care?. Psychiatry Res 2020; 283: 112376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 150 Eccles M, Mittman B. Editorial: welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science 2006; 1 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 151 Gitlin LN, Baier RR, Jutkowitz E. et al. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care using embedded pragmatic trials. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020; 68 (Suppl 2, Suppl 2): S28-S36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 152 Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernández D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13 (01) 16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 153 Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. In: Implementation Science 30. Springer; 2020: 53-79
  • 154 Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ. et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci 2018; 13 (01) 143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 155 Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA. et al. Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun 2020; 1 (01) 42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 156 Studts CR. Implementation science: increasing the public health impact of audiology research. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (3S): 849-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 157 Marrone NL, Nieman CL, Coco L. Community-based participatory research and human-centered design principles to advance hearing health equity. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (Suppl. 01) 33S-44S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 158 Barker F, Lusignan S, Deborah C. Improving collaborative behaviour planning in adult auditory rehabilitation: development of the I-PLAN intervention using the behaviour change wheel. Ann Behav Med 2018; 52 (06) 489-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 159 Barker F, Atkins L, de Lusignan S. Applying the COM-B behaviour model and behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention to improve hearing-aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (3, Suppl 3): S90-S98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 160 Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B. et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health 2019; 7: 64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 161 Nickbakht M, Meyer CJ, Saulsman L. et al. Barriers and facilitators to asking adults with hearing loss about their emotional and psychological well-being: a COM-B analysis. Int J Audiol 2022; 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 162 Lesica NA, Mehta N, Manjaly JG, Deng L, Wilson BS, Zeng FG. Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to transform hearing healthcare and research. Nat Mach Intell 2021; 3 (10) 840-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 163 Saunders GH, Christensen JH, Gutenberg J. et al. Application of big data to support evidence-based public health policy decision-making for hearing. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (05) 1057-1063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar