Objectives: Most practitioners believe that use of two hearing aids is the ideal fitting for adults with bilateral symmetrical hearing loss. However, previous research has consistently shown that a substantial proportion of these patients actually prefer to use only one hearing aid. This study explored whether this pattern of preferences is seen with technologically advanced hearing aids. In addition, a selection of variables that were available prefitting were used to attempt to predict which patients will prefer one hearing aid rather than two.
Design: The study was designed as a 12-week field trial including structured and unstructured use of one and two hearing aids. Ninety-four subjects with mild to moderate bilaterally symmetrical hearing loss were bilaterally fit with 2005-2007 era hearing aids. Potential predictors included demographic, audiometric, auditory lifestyle, personality, and binaural processing variables. After the field trial, each subject stated his or her preference for one or two hearing aids and completed three self-report outcome questionnaires for their preferred fitting.
Results: Previous research was confirmed with modern technology hearing aids: after the field trial, 46% of the subjects preferred to use one hearing aid rather than two. Subjects who preferred two hearing aids tended to report better real-world outcomes than those who preferred one. Subjects who reported more hearing problems in daily life, who experienced more binaural loudness summation, and whose ears were more equivalent in dichotic listening were more likely to prefer to use two hearing aids. Contrary to conventional wisdom (ideas that are generally accepted as true), audiometric hearing loss and auditory lifestyle were not predictive of aiding preference. However, the best predictive approach from these data yielded accurate predictions for only two-thirds of the subjects.
Conclusions: Evidence-based practice calls for a conscientious melding of current evidence, clinical judgment, and patient preferences. The results of this research challenge practitioners to recognize that many patients who seem to be ideal candidates for bilateral aiding will actually prefer to wear only one hearing aid. Furthermore, at this time, there is no accurate method that will predict which patients will prefer one hearing aid rather than two. At present, the most effective approach open to practitioners would be to conduct a candid unbiased systematic field trial allowing each patient to compare unilateral and bilateral fittings in daily life. This might necessitate more fitting sessions and could perhaps add to the practitioner's burden. This downside should be weighed against the additional patient satisfaction that can be anticipated as a result of transparency in the fitting protocol, collaboration with the patient in the treatment decisions, and the knowledge of selecting the most cost-effective patient-centered solution.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042486 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181f8bf6c | DOI Listing |
Ear Hear
January 2025
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Objectives: This umbrella review aims to summarize the major benefits of hearing aid usage in adults by synthesizing findings from published review articles.
Design: A comprehensive search of databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, was conducted. The search was limited to English-language review articles published between 1990 and 2023, focusing on hearing aid outcomes in at least 5 adults (aged ≥18 years).
JMIR Res Protoc
January 2025
Department of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Background: Individuals with hearing impairments may face hindrances in health care assistance, which may significantly impact the prognosis and the incidence of complications and iatrogenic events. Therefore, the development of automatic communication systems to assist the interaction between this population and health care workers is paramount.
Objective: This study aims to systematically review the evidence on communication systems using human-computer interaction techniques developed for deaf people who communicate through sign language that are already in use or proposed for use in health care contexts and have been tested with human users or videos of human users.
Audiol Res
January 2025
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK.
: Adults with hearing loss demonstrate poorer overall health outcomes (e.g., physical health, cognitive functioning and wellbeing) and lower levels of physical activity/function compared to those without hearing loss.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAudiol Res
December 2024
Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India.
Hearing loss in children can have a detrimental impact on their development, thus lowering the psychological well-being of parents. This study examined the amount of parental stress, learned helplessness, and perceived social support in mothers of children with hearing loss (MCHL) and mothers of typically developing children (MTDC), as well as the relationship between various possible contributing factors to parental stress such as learned helplessness and perceived social support. Three questionnaires measured parental stress (Parental Stress Scale; PSS), learned helplessness (Learned Helplessness Scale; LHS), and perceived social support (Perceived Social Support-Friends PSS-Fr and Perceived Social Support-Family PSS-Fa Scale) in 100 MCHL and 90 MTDC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Neurosci
January 2025
Department of Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Amplitude compression is an indispensable feature of contemporary audio production and especially relevant in modern hearing aids. The cortical fate of amplitude-compressed speech signals is not well-studied, however, and may yield undesired side effects: We hypothesize that compressing the amplitude envelope of continuous speech reduces neural tracking. Yet, leveraging such a 'compression side effect' on unwanted, distracting sounds could potentially support attentive listening if effectively reducing their neural tracking.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!