Consumer and audiologist perspectives on hearables: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore (i) what adults with hearing difficulties want and need from hearables, which we defined as any non-medical personal sound amplification product, and (ii) what hearing care professionals think about hearables. DESIGN: This was an exploratory, qualitative study conducted using separate focus groups with adults with hearing difficulties and audiologists. Data were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 12 adults with hearing difficulties and 6 audiologists. RESULTS: Adults with hearing difficulties expressed desire for trustworthy information and support, described evaluating hearables and other devices according to diverse personal criteria, and expressed willingness to vary their budget according to product quality. Audiologists expressed views that hearables are an inferior product but useful tool, that it is not necessarily their role to assist with hearables, that hearables are a source of uncertainty, and that the provision of hearables by audiologists is not currently practical. CONCLUSION: Adults with hearing difficulties may have complex reasons for considering hearables and may desire a high level of clinical support in this area. Ongoing research into the efficacy and effectiveness of hearables is needed together with research into effective strategies to incorporate hearables into clinical practice.

What's in a name? A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing losses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and the impact of device features on outcomes. DESIGN: A prospectively registered systematic review. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten studies evaluating personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), and four evaluating smartphone amplification applications (or apps). Devices were classified as "premium" or "basic" based on the number of compression channels (≥16 or <16, respectively). RESULTS: Meta-analyses showed that premium PSAPs improved speech intelligibility in noise performance compared to unaided, whereas basic PSAPs and smartphone apps did not. Premium PSAPs performed better than basic hearing aids. Premium hearing aids performed better than premium and basic PSAPs, smartphone apps, and basic hearing aids. Although data could not be pooled, similar findings were also found for quality of life, listening ability, cognition, feasibility, and adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Premium PSAPs appear to be an effective non-medical amplification device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Given the overlap in features available, it may be that this is a key consideration when drawing comparisons between devices, rather than the device being named a PSAP or hearing aid. Nevertheless, the extent to which PSAPs are effective without audiological input remains to be determined.

Development of a self-report measure of empowerment along the hearing health journey: a content evaluation study.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first phases in the development of a self-report measure of empowerment on the hearing health journey, specifically, item generation and content evaluation of the initial pool of items generated. DESIGN: A content expert panel survey and cognitive interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics were obtained for the quantitative data, and the cognitive interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Eleven researchers and clinicians participated in the content expert surveys. Sixteen experienced hearing aid users participated in the cognitive interviews, recruited from the USA and Australia. RESULTS: The items underwent five iterations based on feedback from the survey and interview data. This resulted in a set of 33 quality-tested potential survey items that were rated highly for relevance (mean = 3.96), clarity (mean = 3.70) and fit to dimensions of empowerment (mean = 3.92) (scale 0-4, where 4 was the maximum rating). CONCLUSIONS: Involving stakeholders in item generation and content evaluation increased relevance, clarity, fit to dimension, comprehensiveness, and acceptability of the items. This preliminary version of the 33-item measure underwent further psychometric refinement (Rasch analysis and traditional classical test theory testing) to validate it for clinical and research use (reported separately).

Refinement and Validation of the Empowerment Audiology Questionnaire: Rasch Analysis and Traditional Psychometric Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Empowerment is the process through which individuals with hearing-related challenges acquire and use knowledge, skills and strategies, and increase self-efficacy, participation, and control of their hearing health care, hearing solutions, and everyday lives. The aim was to refine and validate the Empowerment Audiology Questionnaire (EmpAQ), a hearing-specific measure of empowerment. This was achieved through (1) refinement via Rasch analysis (study 1), and (2) traditional psychometric analysis of the final survey structure (study 2). DESIGN: In study 1, 307 adult hearing aid owners completed the initial empowerment measure (33 items) online. To inform an intended item reduction, Rasch analysis was used to assess a range of psychometric properties for individual items. The psychometric properties included analysis of individual items (e.g., response dependency, fit to the polytomous Rasch model, threshold ordering) and the whole EmpAQ (e.g., dimensionality). Item reduction resulted in a 15-item version (EmpAQ-15) and a short-form 5-item version (EmpAQ-5), validated using modern (Rasch), and traditional (Classical Test Theory) psychometric analysis (study 2). In study 2, 178 adult hearing aid owners completed the EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5, alongside 5 questionnaires to measure related constructs. These included two hearing-specific questionnaires (Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire and Self-Assessment of Communication), two general health-related questionnaires (Patient Activation Measure and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0), and a general empowerment questionnaire (Health Care Empowerment Questionnaire). Modern (Rasch) and traditional psychometric analysis techniques (internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity) were used to assess the psychometric properties of the EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5. RESULTS: Rasch analysis of the initial 33-item measure of empowerment identified 18 items with high response dependency, poor fit to the Rasch model, and threshold disordering, which were removed, resulting in a long-form (EmpAQ-15) hearing-specific measure of empowerment. A short-form (EmpAQ-5) version was developed for use in the clinic setting. Validation of the two EmpAQ measures using Rasch analysis showed good item fit to the Rasch model, appropriate threshold targeting, and the existence of unidimensionality. Traditional psychometric evaluation showed that both questionnaires had high internal consistency and positive correlations with the hearing-specific questionnaires. However, in contrast with our hypotheses, correlations with general health questionnaires were stronger than with hearing-specific questionnaires; all questionnaires were correlated with the EmpAQ and in the direction hypothesized. Taken together, these findings support the construct validity of the EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5. CONCLUSIONS: The EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5 are the first self-report measures to be developed specifically for the measurement of empowerment. The EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5 were found to meet the Rasch model criteria for interval-level measurements. Traditional psychometric evaluation supports the construct validity of both measures. The EmpAQ measures have the potential to be used in both research and clinical practice to evaluate empowerment along the hearing journey. The next stage of this research will be to further validate these measures by assessing their responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference, and clinical interpretability in a clinical population.

Clinical Assessment Tools for the Detection of Cognitive Impairment and Hearing Loss in the Ageing Population: A Scoping Review.

Objective: There is a strong association between cognitive impairment and hearing loss, both highly prevalent in the ageing population. Early detection of both hearing loss and cognitive impairment is essential in the management of these conditions to ensure effective and informed decisions on healthcare. The main objective was to identify existing and emerging cognitive and auditory assessment tools used in clinical settings (eg, memory clinics, audiology clinics), which manage the ageing population. Methods: A scoping review of peer-reviewed publications and results were reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: A total of 289 articles were selected for data extraction. The majority of studies (76.1%) were conducted in 2017 or later. Tests of global cognitive function (ie, Mini-Mental State Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment) were the most commonly used method to detect cognitive impairment in hearing healthcare settings. Behavioral hearing testing (ie, pure-tone audiometry) was the most commonly used method to detect hearing loss in cognitive healthcare settings. Objective, physiological measures were seldom used across disciplines. Conclusion: Preferences among clinicians for short, accessible tests likely explain the use of tests of global cognitive function and behavioral hearing tests. Rapidly evolving literature has identified inherent limitations of administering global cognitive function tests and pure-tone testing in an ageing population. Using electrophysiological measures as an adjunct to standard methods of assessment may provide more reliable information for clinical recommendations in those with cognitive and hearing impairment, and subsequently achieve better healthcare outcomes.

The audiological rehabilitation of workers with hearing loss in the UK: a qualitative study of workers' perspectives.

PURPOSE: Unaddressed hearing loss can adversely affect employment and day-to-day work-life. Efficient and effective audiology support can help optimise hearing in the workplace. This study explores the audiological rehabilitation experiences of workers with hearing loss (WHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four WHL with experience of a wide range of audiology services across the UK participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were generated: Theme 1: mixed experiences with audiology services (subdivided into two subthemes and four sub-subthemes). Theme 2: audiology role in work support (subdivided into three subthemes). Theme 3: "I think support could be improved if…" (subdivided into two subthemes). CONCLUSION: The audiological rehabilitation for working-age adults with hearing loss needs improvements to deliver sufficient support and quality care. Some of the barriers to having better-functioning hearing healthcare require fundamental standards in healthcare quality, such as access to services, staff (including audiologists) deaf awareness, information and technology support, and personalised care that considers work-life needs. Further research is required to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of improvements, such as support that extends beyond hearing aid care, whether from audiology or non-audiology services.

Workers with hearing loss need audiologists' support to address their work life needs beyond hearing-aids care.Improving audiologists' competencies, audiology departments' efficiency and developing relevant resources may promote better healthcare for workers with hearing loss.Audiologists, employers, workers, and the healthcare system need to collaborate in developing person-centred solutions to sufficiently assist workers with hearing loss.

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

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.

A protocol for the Hearing impairment in Adults: A Longitudinal Outcomes Study (HALOS).

BACKGROUND: Often considered an "invisible disability", hearing loss is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases and the third leading cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Hearing loss has substantial impacts on communication, psychological wellbeing, social connectedness, cognition, quality of life, and economic independence. The Hearing impairment in Adults: a Longitudinal Outcomes Study (HALOS) aims to evaluate the: (1) impacts of hearing devices (hearing aids and/or cochlear implants), (2) differences in timing of these interventions and in long-term outcomes between hearing aid and cochlear implant users, and (3) cost-effectiveness of early intervention for adult-onset hearing loss among hearing device users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HALOS is a mixed-methods study collecting cross-sectional and longitudinal data on health and social outcomes from 908 hearing aid and/or cochlear implant users aged ≥40 years, recruited from hearing service providers across Australia. The quantitative component will involve an online survey at baseline (time of recruitment), 24-months, and 48-months and will collect audiological, health, psychosocial, functional and employment outcomes using validated instruments. The qualitative component will be conducted in a subset of participants at baseline and involve semi-structured interviews to understand the patient journey and perspectives on the Australian hearing service model. ETHICS: This study has been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 11262) and Southern Adelaide Local Health Network (ID: LNR/22/SAC/88). Dissemination of results: Study findings will be disseminated to participants via a one-page summary, and to the public through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) registration number: ACTRN12622000752763.

Social-emotional well-being and adult hearing loss: clinical recommendations.

Aim: Best-practice in audiological rehabilitation takes a holistic client- and family-centred approach and considers hearing care in the context of personal well-being. Hearing loss not only impairs the ability to hear, but can also compromise the ability to communicate, thus negatively impacting both social and emotional well-being. Hearing care professionals play a key role in fostering their client's well-being. This paper aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to ensure inclusion of social-emotional well-being in audiologic rehabilitation clinical practice.Methods: A review of current research and expert opinion.Results: This guide proposes a 5-step plan which includes: identifying the client's social-emotional well-being; including family members in audiological rehabilitation; incorporating social-emotional needs and goals in an individualized management plan; relating identified hearing needs and goals to rehabilitation recommendations; and using counselling skills and techniques to explore and monitor social-emotional well-being. Each component of the 5-step plan is discussed and clinical considerations are presented.Conclusion: These comprehensive recommendations provide guidance to hearing care professionals looking to ensure clients' social-emotional well-being are considered throughout the rehabilitation journey.

Evaluation of home-delivered live-voice auditory training for adult hearing aid users involving their communication partners: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the benefits of home-delivered auditory training for adult hearing aid users using live-voice conversations in the presence of a single-talker distractor (experimental group) or in quiet (active-control group). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. The experimental group held conversations with their nominated communication partner in the presence of a single-talker distractor set to a challenging level, 30 min/day, 5 days/week over 4 weeks. The active-control group held comparable conversations in quiet. Behavioural outcome measures of speech-in-noise perception, cognition and self-reported hearing difficulties were assessed pre- and post-training. Participant feedback was obtained. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine hearing aid users (32 males, 7 females, mean age = 73.02 years, SD = 4.71 years) and their communication partners. RESULTS: The experimental group significantly improved and outperformed the active-control group for words-in-noise perception. Both groups achieved improvements in self-reported hearing difficulty while only the experimental group improved on dual-task. Subjectively, both groups found live-voice conversations beneficial and reported increased concentration and listening skills. CONCLUSIONS: Home-delivered live-voice auditory training with communication partners shows potential to improve outcomes for adult hearing aid users, regardless of the presence or absence of a competing speech distractor. Further research is required to assess mechanisms of benefit and distractor effects within carefully controlled experiments.

"We forget about peoples' hearing loss": identifying key aspects of hearing aid and communication training in residential care homes.

OBJECTIVES: The first objective was to assess the feasibility of training on hearing aids and communication strategies by support workers in residential care via a cascade training model using two different training packages. The second was to identify key elements of these packages to inform the design of a multimedia training package. DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. A pre-post feasibility design assessed the questionnaire data from residential care support workers to measure knowledge and confidence at three stages during the training. Semi-structured interviews explored the support workers' experiences and adherence to cascading the training packages. STUDY SAMPLE: Fourteen support workers employed by Sense (charity for deafblind people) were trained to become "Hearing Champions" and cascaded their learning to 117 support colleagues. RESULTS: Hearing Champions gained knowledge, skills and confidence, which were subsequently enhanced by sharing their learning with others. Despite individual and organisational barriers, they reported examples of improved practice and feelings of empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to deliver training to support workers in residential homes using the face-to-face "Hearing Champions" and multimedia C2Hear training methods by cascading training to their colleagues. Support workers expressed a preference for training that is portable, adaptable and interactive.

A qualitative study showing that a telecare tool can have benefits before and during the initial hearing assessment appointment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient and audiologist experiences and perspectives of using a patient-centred telecare tool, the Ida Institute's Why Improve My Hearing? (WIMH) Tool, before and during the initial hearing assessment appointment. DESIGN: A qualitative study comprising individual semi-structured interviews using a maximum variation sampling strategy. The data were analysed using an established thematic analysis technique. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifteen participants, including ten patients (i.e. adults with hearing loss) and five audiologists, were recruited from Adult Audiology Services within the United Kingdom's publicly-funded National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS: Three themes described the impact of using the WIMH Tool. Theme 1 (i.e. enhanced preparation before the appointment): the Tool helps patients to better understand and accept their hearing difficulties in advance of their first appointment. Theme 2 (i.e. enriched discussion during the appointment): the tool can enhance patient-centred communication, as well as the efficiency of the appointment. Theme 3 (i.e. varied impact on outcomes following the appointment): the Tool can improve patient motivation, readiness, and involvement in decision-making, though it may have limited impact on additional outcomes, such as adherence. CONCLUSION: The WIMH Tool can be successfully implemented in audiological practice, resulting in benefits before and during the initial hearing assessment appointment.

Defining a Patient-Centred Core Outcome Domain Set for the Assessment of Hearing Rehabilitation With Clients and Professionals.

Background: A variety of outcome domains are currently measured for the assessment of hearing rehabilitation. To date, there is no consensus about which outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured. In addition, most studies seeking to develop core outcome sets and measures for hearing rehabilitation services have primarily focussed on the opinions and expertise of researchers, and, to a lesser extent, clinicians, rather than also involving clients of those services. The principles of experience-based co-design suggest that health services, researchers, and policymakers should come together with clients and their families to design health services and define what metrics should be used for their success. Objectives: This study aimed to seek views and consensus from a range of key stakeholders to define which client-centred self-report outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured, in a national publicly funded hearing rehabilitation scheme. In addition, the study aimed to identify current and future potential mechanisms and systems to standardise the collection of data and reporting of outcomes, to enable comparison across clients and hearing service providers. Methods: Two stakeholder groups participated in a three-round online Delphi process: (1) 79 professional stakeholders involved in the delivery of hearing services in Australia, and (2) 64 hearing rehabilitation services' clients identified by not-for-profit consumer organisations. An initial set of in-person workshops scoped the key issues upon which to develop the initial open-ended questions and subsequent Likert-scale statements addressing these issues. These statements were then distributed to both groups in an online survey. The respondent ratings were summarised, and the summary was returned to respondents along with a second round of the survey. This process was then repeated once more. The five most important outcome domains from both groups were then combined, and a consensus workshop of seven professionals and three client advocates agreed on the top four ranked domains. Results: A range of potential outcome domains were identified as relevant indicators of successful hearing rehabilitation. Communication ability, personal relationships, wellbeing, and participation restrictions were identified as a core outcome domain set that should be measured as a minimum for patients receiving hearing rehabilitation. There was little agreement on the preferred timepoints for collection of outcome measures, with respondents expressing the view that this should be established by research once a set of outcome measures has been selected. However, there was broad agreement that measurements of these domains should be collected at baseline (before the provision of hearing rehabilitation) and no earlier than 3 months following the completion of rehabilitation. Potential benefits and issues with the development of a national outcomes database/collection system were also identified and prioritised, with participants highlighting the importance of valid, high-quality, trustworthy, and comprehensive data collection. Conclusion: These results provide a Core Outcome Domain Set for the self-reported evaluation of hearing rehabilitation and provide important background information for the design of methods to implement them across hearing healthcare systems. However, the wide range of outcome domains identified as potentially providing important additional information and the lack of specific measures to address these domains strongly suggest that there is still more research to be done. Ongoing stakeholder engagement will continue to be vital for future implementation. In addition, further research is required to determine the optimal time following hearing rehabilitation to utilise any particular outcome measure.

Hearing From You: Design Thinking in Audiological Research.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to describe the emerging use of design thinking methodologies in hearing health care research using a participatory action approach with a consumer and community involvement panel, audiologists, and adults with hearing loss. METHOD: Two connected hearing health care projects that adopted design thinking principles are presented here as case studies. Case 1 investigated the applicability and acceptability of smart voice assistant technology as post-hearing aid fitting support. Case 2 investigated the feasibility of providing support for new adult patients with hearing loss before they attend their hearing assessment appointment. DISCUSSION: The design thinking process provided a flexible structure in which researchers were able to empathize with stakeholders, define their unmet needs, and ideate potential connected hearing health care solutions to develop and evaluate prototypes in clinical and home settings. CONCLUSION: Utilizing a needs-based, collaborative design thinking approach to conduct development in hearing health care research is a viable and novel option to produce innovative, relevant, and translational hearing health solutions that address stakeholder needs.

Understanding patient empowerment along the hearing health journey.

OBJECTIVE: Related to the hearing health journey, this study aimed to: (i) explore how empowerment manifests itself from individuals' first awareness of hearing loss through to hearing aid fitting and then to becoming an active hearing aid user, (ii) identify points when the different dimensions of empowerment are most relevant, and (iii) conceptualise empowerment. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview study was conducted, followed by a template analysis of the data. STUDY SAMPLE: Adult hearing aid users from Sweden (n = 8) and Australia (n = 10) who had worn hearing aids for between 6 and 36 months. RESULTS: The themes that emerged from the transcripts were knowledge, skills and strategies, participation, self-efficacy, and control. CONCLUSIONS: This study conceptualises empowerment along the hearing health journey as the process through which individuals with hearing-related challenges acquire and use knowledge, skills, and strategies, and increase self-efficacy, participation, and the feeling of control of their hearing health care, hearing solutions, and everyday lives. There are not specific points along the hearing health journey where any dimension is uniquely relevant, instead, each dimension is a dynamic component at all stages.

Smartphone-Connected Hearing Aids Enable and Empower Self-Management of Hearing Loss: A Qualitative Interview Study Underpinned by the Behavior Change Wheel.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-reported barriers and facilitators to using smartphone-connected hearing aids, using the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) to understand experiences and how these can be addressed. DESIGN: A single-center, prospective, observational study. Eight hearing aid users (new = 1, existing = 7; mean age = 71.75 years, SD = 5.23, range = 65 to 81 years) were identified through convenience sampling from 44 participants who took part in a 7-week evaluation of smartphone-connected hearing aids controlled by a prototype app. The app allowed users to manually control settings such as gain, noise reduction, and microphone directionality, preset, and customized programmes. Participants were assigned to one of two focus groups following trial of the app. RESULTS: Focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed and underpinned by the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior) model and Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to using smartphone-connected hearing aids (the target behavior). Mapping of themes to the BCW allowed use of the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (version 1) to identify behavior change techniques that audiologists could implement in clinical practice to address the barriers and facilitators. Capability: The app increased participants' knowledge of hearing aid controls, encouraging use of the app for improved hearing loss self-management. However, barriers to using the app included perception of insufficient digital literacy skills for smartphone-connected hearing aid use and an increased cognitive load caused by decisions over which controls to use. Opportunity: Perceived smartphone norms (i.e., acceptable occasions to use smartphones) and differing listening contexts acted as both facilitators and barriers. Motivation: The ability to control hearing aid settings in any listening situation (e.g., to reduce noise) empowered users to successfully self-manage their hearing loss, leading to greater confidence and participation in everyday life. The app also reduced hearing aid-related and self-stigma, and the ability to self-adjust hearing aids benefitted both participants and communication partners. It was the adjustability and interaction afforded by the app that empowered users, rather than the hearing aid technology itself. Perceived beliefs and knowledge about digital literacy skills, and specifically abilities to use a smartphone, were perceived to be barriers in this typically older population, particularly when they compared themselves to younger generations. Using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (version 1), behavior change techniques that could be used by audiologists to address these barriers included enablement, goal setting, reframing perceptions toward technology, and addressing patient educational needs. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone-connected hearing aids, when used in their everyday lives, were viewed positively by participants across a range of domains, empowering them and enabling hearing loss self-management. Audiologists should consider smartphone-connected hearing aid candidacy for all who have access to smartphones and are willing to use one. Use of the BCW has identified that modifiable barriers to using smartphone-connected hearing aids exist. Audiologists could use these evidence-based behavior change techniques to support patients in adopting and using these technologies to successfully self-manage hearing loss. Overall, by reframing smartphone technologies as a tool to remain connected with society, smartphone-connected hearing aids could shift the power of managing hearing loss from clinician to patient.

Cogmed Training Does Not Generalize to Real-World Benefits for Adult Hearing Aid Users: Results of a Blinded, Active-Controlled Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Performance on working memory tasks is positively associated with speech-in-noise perception performance, particularly where auditory inputs are degraded. It is suggested that interventions designed to improve working memory capacity may improve domain-general working memory performance for people with hearing loss, to benefit their real-world listening. We examined whether a 5-week training program that primarily targets the storage component of working memory (Cogmed RM, adaptive) could improve cognition, speech-in-noise perception and self-reported hearing in a randomized controlled trial of adult hearing aid users with mild to moderate hearing loss, compared with an active control (Cogmed RM, nonadaptive) group of adults from the same population. DESIGN: A preregistered randomized controlled trial of 57 adult hearing aid users (n = 27 experimental, n = 30 active control), recruited from a dedicated database of research volunteers, examined on-task learning and generalized improvements in measures of trained and untrained cognition, untrained speech-in-noise perception and self-reported hearing abilities, pre- to post-training. Participants and the outcome assessor were both blinded to intervention allocation. Retention of training-related improvements was examined at a 6-month follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Per-protocol analyses showed improvements in trained tasks (Cogmed Index Improvement) that transferred to improvements in a trained working memory task tested outside of the training software (Backward Digit Span) and a small improvement in self-reported hearing ability (Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, Initial Disability subscale). Both of these improvements were maintained 6-month post-training. There was no transfer of learning shown to untrained measures of cognition (working memory or attention), speech-in-noise perception, or self-reported hearing in everyday life. An assessment of individual differences showed that participants with better baseline working memory performance achieved greater learning on the trained tasks. Post-training performance for untrained outcomes was largely predicted by individuals' pretraining performance on those measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant on-task learning, generalized improvements of working memory training in this trial were limited to (a) improvements for a trained working memory task tested outside of the training software and (b) a small improvement in self-reported hearing ability for those in the experimental group, compared with active controls. We found no evidence to suggest that training which primarily targets storage aspects of working memory can result in domain-general improvements that benefit everyday communication for adult hearing aid users. These findings are consistent with a significant body of evidence showing that Cogmed training only improves performance for tasks that resemble Cogmed training. Future research should focus on the benefits of interventions that enhance cognition in the context in which it is employed within everyday communication, such as training that targets dynamic aspects of cognitive control important for successful speech-in-noise perception.

Consensus on connected hearing health technologies and service delivery models in the UK: a Delphi review.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus among hearing healthcare professionals in the UK on connected hearing health technologies and service delivery models. DESIGN: A three-round, electronic Delphi review was developed using a participatory-design approach. This included ten open-ended questions (round one) that informed 69 Likert-scaled statements (rounds two and three). STUDY SAMPLE: An expert panel of 34 hearing health professionals representing all geographic regions of the UK from either the publicly funded National Health Service (n = 22) or independent sector (n = 12). RESULTS: The majority of statements (61%) showed ≥80% consensus, highlighting that there was broad agreement amongst professionals on connected hearing health technologies. For example, there was consensus that adults who report communication difficulties and have no medical contraindications would be ideal candidates. Furthermore, it was unanimously agreed that connected technologies could result in delays in diagnosis of treatable medical conditions, as well as result in inadequate amplification. Overall, the expert panel concurred that connected technologies could serve as "gateway products" that lead to earlier hearing aid uptake. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi review identified overarching areas of agreement that may serve as a blueprint for future implementation of connected hearing health technologies through either conventional or new service delivery models in the UK.

Barriers and facilitators to delivery of group audiological rehabilitation programs: a survey based on the COM-B model.

OBJECTIVE: To canvas the views of Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians regarding group audiological rehabilitation practices. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional self-report survey. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-two Australia-based hearing healthcare clinicians, with experience working in an adult rehabilitation setting. RESULTS: Clinicians appeared to positively view the provision of group audiological rehabilitation services, yet were limited in their ability to deliver these services due to organisational barriers. Although some organisational barriers were non-modifiable by the clinician (such as group AR services not prioritised within their workplace, a lack of support from colleagues/managers, lack of resources, and a lack of funding for the delivery of group AR services), others were within the clinicians' ability to change (such as habit formation for recommending these services during clinical appointments). Participants expressed a desire for resources to assist them in delivering group AR, including downloadable lesson plans and information sheets for clients, clinician training videos and client educational videos. Clinicians called for increased diversity in program offerings, specifically relating to the emotional, relational and social impacts of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a framework for the development of interventional studies to increase the utilisation of group audiological rehabilitation services.