Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is associated with increased cognitive decline and incident dementia in older adults. We aimed to investigate whether a hearing intervention could reduce cognitive decline in cognitively healthy older adults with hearing loss. METHODS: The ACHIEVE study is a multicentre, parallel-group, unmasked, randomised controlled trial of adults aged 70-84 years with untreated hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment that took place at four community study sites across the USA. Participants were recruited from two study populations at each site: (1) older adults participating in a long-standing observational study of cardiovascular health (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study), and (2) healthy de novo community volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a hearing intervention (audiological counselling and provision of hearing aids) or a control intervention of health education (individual sessions with a health educator covering topics on chronic disease prevention) and followed up every 6 months. The primary endpoint was 3-year change in a global cognition standardised factor score from a comprehensive neurocognitive battery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03243422. FINDINGS: From Nov 9, 2017, to Oct 25, 2019, we screened 3004 participants for eligibility and randomly assigned 977 (32·5%; 238 [24%] from ARIC and 739 [76%] de novo). We randomly assigned 490 (50%) to the hearing intervention and 487 (50%) to the health education control. The cohort had a mean age of 76·8 years (SD 4·0), 523 (54%) were female, 454 (46%) were male, and most were White (n=858 [88%]). Participants from ARIC were older, had more risk factors for cognitive decline, and had lower baseline cognitive scores than those in the de novo cohort. In the primary analysis combining the ARIC and de novo cohorts, 3-year cognitive change (in SD units) was not significantly different between the hearing intervention and health education control groups (-0·200 [95% CI -0·256 to -0·144] in the hearing intervention group and -0·202 [-0·258 to -0·145] in the control group; difference 0·002 [-0·077 to 0·081]; p=0·96). However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis showed a significant difference in the effect of the hearing intervention on 3-year cognitive change between the ARIC and de novo cohorts (pinteraction=0·010). Other prespecified sensitivity analyses that varied analytical parameters used in the total cohort did not change the observed results. No significant adverse events attributed to the study were reported with either the hearing intervention or health education control. INTERPRETATION: The hearing intervention did not reduce 3-year cognitive decline in the primary analysis of the total cohort. However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis showed that the effect differed between the two study populations that comprised the cohort. These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Hearing loss and cognition: A protocol for ensuring speech understanding before neurocognitive assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Many neurocognitive evaluations involve auditory stimuli, yet there are no standard testing guidelines for individuals with hearing loss. The ensuring speech understanding (ESU) test was developed to confirm speech understanding and determine whether hearing accommodations are necessary for neurocognitive testing. METHODS: Hearing was assessed using audiometry. The probability of ESU test failure by hearing status was estimated in 2679 participants (mean age: 81.4 ± 4.6 years) using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 2.2% (N = 58) of participants failed the ESU test. The probability of failure increased with hearing loss severity; similar results were observed for those with and without mild cognitive impairment or dementia. DISCUSSION: The ESU test is appropriate for individuals who have variable degrees of hearing loss and cognitive function. This test can be used prior to neurocognitive testing to help reduce the risk of hearing loss and compromised auditory access to speech stimuli causing poorer performance on neurocognitive evaluation.

Development, assessment, and monitoring of audiologic treatment fidelity in the aging and cognitive health evaluation in elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating hearing interventions under-utilise and under-report treatment fidelity planning, implementation, and assessment. This represents a critical gap in the field that has the potential to impede advancements in the successful dissemination and implementation of interventions. Thus, our objective was to describe treatment fidelity planning and implementation for hearing intervention in the multi-site Ageing and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Our treatment fidelity plan was based on a framework defined by the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC), and included strategies to enhance study design, provider training, and treatment delivery, receipt, and enactment. STUDY SAMPLE: To assess the fidelity of the ACHIEVE hearing intervention, we distributed a checklist containing criteria from each NIH BCC core treatment fidelity category to nine raters. RESULTS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan satisfied 96% of NIH BCC criteria. Our assessment suggested a need for including clear, objective definitions of provider characteristics and non-treatment aspects of intervention delivery in future fidelity plans. CONCLUSIONS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan can serve as a framework for the application of NIH BCC fidelity strategies for future studies and enhance the ability of researchers to reliably implement evidence-based interventions.

Factors Associated With Self-Perceived Hearing Handicap in Adults From Hispanic/Latino Background: Findings From the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine what factors, including acculturation (language and social contact preferences), were associated with self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. We utilized the Aday-Andersen behavioral model of health services utilization to frame our hypotheses that predisposing characteristics (age, sex, education, city of residence, Hispanic/Latino background, and acculturation), enabling resources (annual income and current health insurance coverage), and need (measured hearing loss and self-reported hearing loss) would be related to clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap as measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory - Screening (HHI-S) version. DESIGN: We analyzed baseline data collected from 2008 to 2011 as part of the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Data were from 6585 adults with hearing loss (defined by a worse-ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz pure-tone average [PTA] of ≥25 dB HL and/or a 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz high-frequency PTA of ≥25 dB HL) aged 18 to 74 years from various Hispanic/Latino backgrounds. We conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression models examining the roles of independent variables of interest representing predisposing, enabling, and need indicators on the occurrence of clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap (e.g., HHI-S score > 8). RESULTS: Among included participants, 953 (14.5%) had an HHI-S score >8. The final model revealed significant associations between predisposing characteristics, enabling resources, need, and HHI-S outcome. Predisposing characteristics and need factors were associated with higher odds of reporting self-perceived hearing handicap (HHI-S score >8) including acculturation as measured by the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.50), female sex (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.27-2.33), and poorer worse ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz PTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03); suggesting that a 5-decibel increase in a person's PTA was consistent with 10% higher odds of a HHI-S score of >8. Greater enabling resources were associated with lower odds of reporting clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap: compared with individuals with income <$10,000/year, the multivariable-adjusted OR among individuals with income $40,000 to $7500/year was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89) and among individuals with income >$75,000/year was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.13-0.59]; p-trend < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest there are associations between predisposing, enabling and need variables consistent with the Aday-Andersen model and self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. The influence of language and culture on perceived hearing loss and associated handicap is complex, and deserves more attention in future studies. Our findings warrant further investigation into understanding the role of language and language access in hearing health care utilization and outcomes, as the current body of literature is small and shows mixed outcomes.

The Hearing Intervention for the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Randomized Control Trial: Manualization and Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVES: This work describes the development of a manualized best-practice hearing intervention for older adults participating in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomized controlled clinical trial. Manualization of interventions for clinical trials is critical for assuring intervention fidelity and quality, especially in large multisite studies. The multisite ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial is designed to assess the efficacy of a hearing intervention on rates of cognitive decline in older adults. We describe the development of the manualized hearing intervention through an iterative process that included addressing implementation questions through the completion of a feasibility study (ACHIEVE-Feasibility). DESIGN: Following published recommendations for manualized intervention development, an iterative process was used to define the ACHIEVE-hearing intervention elements and create an initial manual. The intervention was then delivered within the ACHIEVE-Feasibility study using one-group pre-post design appropriate for assessing questions related to implementation. Participants were recruited from the Tampa, Florida area between May 2015 and April 2016. Inclusion criteria were cognitively healthy adults aged 70 to 89 with symmetrical mild-to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. The ACHIEVE-Feasibility study sought to assess the implementation of the manualized hearing intervention by: (1) confirming improvement in expected outcomes were achieved including aided speech-in-noise performance and perception of disease-specific self-report measures; (2) determining whether the participants would comply with the intervention including session attendance and use of hearing aids; and (3) determining whether the intervention sessions could be delivered within a reasonable timeframe. RESULTS: The initial manualized intervention that incorporated the identified best-practice elements was evaluated for feasibility among 21 eligible participants and 9 communication partners. Post-intervention expected outcomes were obtained with speech-in-noise performance results demonstrating a significant improvement under the aided condition and self-reported measures showing a significant reduction in self-perceived hearing handicap. Compliance was excellent, with 20 of the 21 participants (95.2%) completing all intervention sessions and 19 (90.4%) returning for the 6-month post-intervention visit. Furthermore, self-reported hearing aid compliance was >8 hr/day, and the average daily hearing aid use from datalogging was 7.8 hr. Study completion was delivered in a reasonable timeframe with visits ranging from 27 to 85 min per visit. Through an iterative process, the intervention elements were refined, and the accompanying manual was revised based on the ACHIEVE-Feasibility study activities, results, and clinician and participant informal feedback. CONCLUSION: The processes for the development of a manualized intervention described here provide guidance for future researchers who aim to examine the efficacy of approaches for the treatment of hearing loss in a clinical trial. The manualized ACHIEVE-Hearing Intervention provides a patient-centered, yet standardized, step-by-step process for comprehensive audiological assessment, goal setting, and treatment through the use of hearing aids, other hearing assistive technologies, counseling, and education aimed at supporting self-management of hearing loss. The ACHIEVE-Hearing Intervention is feasible in terms of implementation with respect to verified expected outcomes, compliance, and reasonable timeframe delivery. Our processes assure intervention fidelity and quality for use in the ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243422).

Development of a hearing help-seeking questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop and assess a questionnaire measuring the constructs of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) regarding older adults' behaviours towards seeking a hearing test. DESIGN: Older adults who failed a hearing screening completed a newly developed Theory of Planned Behavior-Hearing Help Seeking (TPB-HHS) questionnaire. A principal components analysis (PCA) examined the factor structure of the questionnaire, and a reliability analysis determined the internal consistency of the factors. An examination of six-month follow-up data determined whether the questionnaire differentiated between individuals who did and did not seek out a hearing test by comparing their TPB-HHS scores. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 407 adults aged 50 to 89 recruited at community hearing screenings. RESULTS: PCA and reliability analyses resulted in a 4-factor, 18 item questionnaire. Three of four factors demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. The TPB-HHS explained 60.18% of the variance and factors were interpreted to be measuring the constructs of Intentions, Perceived Behavioral Control, Attitudes, and Subjective Norms. Individuals who sought a hearing test scored significantly higher on the Intentions, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Attitudes scales than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The TPB-HHS provides insight into underlying psychological mechanisms that drive behaviours related to hearing help-seeking in older adults.

A Randomized Control Trial: Supplementing Hearing Aid Use with Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Auditory Training.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program as a supplement to standard-of-care hearing aid intervention in a Veteran population. DESIGN: A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare outcomes following standard-of-care hearing aid intervention supplemented with (1) LACE training using the 10-session DVD format, (2) LACE training using the 20-session computer-based format, (3) placebo auditory training (AT) consisting of actively listening to 10 hr of digitized books on a computer, and (4) educational counseling-the control group. The study involved 3 VA sites and enrolled 279 veterans. Both new and experienced hearing aid users participated to determine if outcomes differed as a function of hearing aid user status. Data for five behavioral and two self-report measures were collected during three research visits: baseline, immediately following the intervention period, and at 6 months postintervention. The five behavioral measures were selected to determine whether the perceptual and cognitive skills targeted in LACE training generalized to untrained tasks that required similar underlying skills. The two self-report measures were completed to determine whether the training resulted in a lessening of activity limitations and participation restrictions. Outcomes were obtained from 263 participants immediately following the intervention period and from 243 participants 6 months postintervention. Analyses of covariance comparing performance on each outcome measure separately were conducted using intervention and hearing aid user status as between-subject factors, visit as a within-subject factor, and baseline performance as a covariate. RESULTS: No statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for the use of LACE on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this randomized controlled trial show that LACE training does not result in improved outcomes over standard-of-care hearing aid intervention alone. Potential benefits of AT may be different than those assessed by the performance and self-report measures utilized here. Individual differences not assessed in this study should be examined to evaluate whether AT with LACE has any benefits for particular individuals. Clinically, these findings suggest that audiologists may want to temper the expectations of their patients who embark on LACE training.

Depression and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Older Adults With Hearing Loss in the ACHIEVE Study.

Hearing loss is associated with cognitive/physical health; less is known about mental health. We investigated associations between hearing loss severity, depression, and health-related quality of life among older adults with unaided hearing loss. Data (N = 948) were from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study. Hearing was measured by pure-tone average (PTA), Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test, and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE-S). Outcomes were validated measures of depression and health-related quality of life. Associations were assessed by negative binomial regression. More severe hearing loss was associated with worse physical health-related quality of life (ratio: .98, 95% CI: .96, 1.00). Better QuickSIN was associated with higher mental health-related quality of life (1.01 [1.00, 1.02]). Worse HHIE-S was associated with depression (1.24 [1.16, 1.33]) and worse mental (.97 [.96, .98]) and physical (.95 [ .93, .96]) health-related quality of life. Further work will test effects of hearing intervention on mental health.

Loneliness and Social Network Characteristics Among Older Adults With Hearing Loss in the ACHIEVE Study.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is linked to loneliness and social isolation, but evidence is typically based on self-reported hearing. This study quantifies the associations of objective and subjective hearing loss with loneliness and social network characteristics among older adults with untreated hearing loss. METHODS: This study uses baseline data (N = 933) from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study. Hearing loss was quantified by the better ear, speech-frequency pure tone average (PTA), Quick Speech-in-Noise test, and hearing-related quality of life. Outcomes were validated measures of loneliness and social network characteristics. Associations were assessed by Poisson, negative binomial, and linear regression adjusted for demographic, health, and study design characteristics. RESULTS: Participants were mean of 76.8 (4.0) years, 54.0% female, and 87.6% White. Prevalence of loneliness was 38%. Worse PTA was associated with a 19% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (prevalence ration [PR]: 1.19.95% CI: 1.06, 1.33). Better speech-in-noise recognition was associated with greater social network characteristics (eg, larger social network size [IRR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.07]). Worse hearing-related quality of life was associated with a 29% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (PR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.39) and worse social network characteristics (eg, more constricted social network size [IRR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.00]). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the importance of multiple dimensions of hearing to loneliness and social connectedness. Hearing-related quality of life may be a potentially useful, easily administered clinical tool for identifying older adults with hearing loss associated with greater loneliness and social isolation.

Hearing Impairment and Physical Activity and Physical Functioning in Older Adults: Baseline Results From the ACHIEVE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is associated with restricted physical activity (PA) and impaired physical functioning, yet the relationship between severity of hearing impairment (HI) and novel PA measures in older adults with untreated HI is not well understood. METHODS: Analyses included 845 participants aged ≥70 years (mean = 76.6 years) with a better-hearing ear pure-tone average (PTA) ≥30 and <70 dB in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study who wore an ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days. Physical functioning measures included grip strength and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Linear regression models estimated the association by HI level (moderate or greater [PTA ≥ 40 dB] vs mild [PTA < 40 dB]) and continuous hearing with total daily activity counts, active minutes/day, activity fragmentation, grip strength, and gait speed. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of poor performance on the SPPB (≤6) and its subtests (≤2). Mixed-effects models estimated differences by HI level in activity by time of day. RESULTS: Participants with moderate or greater HI had poorer physical functioning, particularly balance (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.29-3.67), versus those with mild impairment. There was no association of HI level with activity quantities or fragmentation. For diurnal patterns of activity, participants with moderate or greater HI had fewer activity counts in the afternoon (12:00 pm -05:59 pm). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with worse hearing had shifted diurnal patterns and poorer balance performance. Exercise programs should be tailored to older adults with different levels of HI to maintain PA and physical functioning, particularly balance control.

Recruitment and baseline data of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study: A randomized trial of a hearing loss intervention for reducing cognitive decline.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best-practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results. METHODS: Multiple strategies were used to recruit community-dwelling 70-84-year-old participants with adult-onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in-person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility. RESULTS: Over a 24-month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in-person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site. DISCUSSION: The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well-established observational study. Highlights: The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in-person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications.

Description of the Baseline Audiologic Characteristics of the Participants Enrolled in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study.

PURPOSE: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a randomized clinical trial designed to determine the effects of a best-practice hearing intervention versus a successful aging health education control intervention on cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults with untreated mild-to-moderate hearing loss. We describe the baseline audiologic characteristics of the ACHIEVE participants. METHOD: Participants aged 70-84 years (N = 977; Mage = 76.8) were enrolled at four U.S. sites through two recruitment routes: (a) an ongoing longitudinal study and (b) de novo through the community. Participants underwent diagnostic evaluation including otoscopy, tympanometry, pure-tone and speech audiometry, speech-in-noise testing, and provided self-reported hearing abilities. Baseline characteristics are reported as frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables or medians (interquartiles, Q1-Q3) for continuous variables. Between-groups comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Spearman correlations assessed relationships between measured hearing function and self-reported hearing handicap. RESULTS: The median four-frequency pure-tone average of the better ear was 39 dB HL, and the median speech-in-noise performance was a 6-dB SNR loss, indicating mild speech-in-noise difficulty. No clinically meaningful differences were found across sites. Significant differences in subjective measures were found for recruitment route. Expected correlations between hearing measurements and self-reported handicap were found. CONCLUSIONS: The extensive baseline audiologic characteristics reported here will inform future analyses examining associations between hearing loss and cognitive decline. The final ACHIEVE data set will be publicly available for use among the scientific community. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24756948.

Style preference survey: a report on the psychometric properties and a cross-validation experiment.

BACKGROUND: Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational design was used in both experiments. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n = 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n = 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants. RESULTS: The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach's α = .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach's α > .75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC = .93) and of the subscales (each ICC > .80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.

Subjective and objective outcomes from new BiCROS technology in a veteran sample.

BACKGROUND: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), where one ear has an unaidable hearing loss and the other ear has normal or aidable hearing, often complain of difficulties understanding speech and localizing sound sources, and report a higher self-perceived hearing disability. Patients with SSD may benefit from using contralateral routing of signal (CROS) or bilateral contralateral routing of the signal (BiCROS) amplification. Dissatisfaction of previously available (Bi)CROS devices has been reported, such as, interfering transmissions, low-fidelity sound quality, poor "user-friendly" set-up, and a bulky and cosmetically cumbersome appearance. PURPOSE: Recent advances in hearing aid technology have improved (Bi)CROS hearing aids; however, these devices have not been experimentally evaluated. We hypothesized that newer technology with reports of improved digital signal processing, wireless transmission, and physical design would be as good, or better than, our participants' previous-generation BiCROS systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: A within-subjects, pretest-posttest design was executed. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine veterans (one female, 38 males; mean age = 74 yr, range = 49-85 yr) from the Audiology Section of the Bay Pines Veterans Affair Healthcare System participated. All participants were previously experienced BiCROS hearing aid users with varying degrees of sensorinerual hearing impairment in their better ear. INTERVENTION: Participants were provided at least 4 wk of consistent use with the new BiCROS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES: Participants completed three research visits. At Visit 1, with their previous BiCROS, and at Visit 3, with their new BiCROS, the following objective and subjective measures were obtained: (1) soundfield speech-in-noise testing using the Words-In-Noise (WIN) test; (2) speech, spatial, and qualities of the hearing scale (SSQ) questionnaire; (3) selected questions from the MarkeTrak questionnaire; and, (4) three open-ended questions. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: Overall, the objective (WIN) and subjective (SSQ, MarkeTrak, and open-ended questions) measures indicated that the new BiCROS provided better outcomes than the previous BiCROS system. In addition, an overlap of favorable results was seen across measures. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 39 participants, 95% reported improvements with the new BiCROS and chose to utilize the device regularly. The favorable objective and subjective outcomes indicate that the new BiCROS system is as good, or better than, what was previously utilized by our sample of veterans.

Are two ears not better than one?

BACKGROUND: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. PURPOSE: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures experimental design. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty veterans (aged 59-85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. RESULTS: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. CONCLUSIONS: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8-10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. PURPOSE: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. RESEARCH DESIGN: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. INTERVENTION: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4-6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4-6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was "preferred." The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Hybrid Audiology Service Delivery Model for Older Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide insight for the feasibility and outcomes of hybrid (combination of in-person office and Internet-based appointments) audiology services. METHOD: This pilot included two phases. First, we surveyed audiologists regarding what elements of a best-practice, in-person delivery of a hearing intervention could be delivered via Internet-based appointments. Next, we piloted the feasibility and assessed outcomes of the procedures identified. Ten first-time hearing aid users aged 70 years and older were fit with Phonak Audeo M90-312T hearing aids. Two Internet-based follow-up appointments were completed using the myPhonak app. We administered the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S), the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN), and real-ear aided responses (REARs) to determine whether participants experienced improvements on hearing-related outcomes. The Telehealth Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) and the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) were administered to gauge comfort with telehealth and satisfaction with Internet-based appointments. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that after an initial in-person appointment, nearly all follow-up hearing intervention components could be delivered remotely. We performed Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests to determine if the baseline and outcome results differed for outcomes. Baseline scores improved after 6 weeks (ps = .02 and. 005 for QuickSIN and HHIE-S) for speech-in-noise performance and self-perceived hearing difficulties. REARs from 500 to 4000 Hz measured after 6 weeks did not differ from baseline (ps = .612 and .398 for the right and left ears), suggesting no significant deviation from prescriptive targets because of remote fitting adjustments. All participants reported improvement in COSI goals after the intervention. TAQ results suggested that comfort with telehealth improved after attending Internet-based appointments (p = .005). VSQ-9 results revealed no differences in reported patient satisfaction between in-person and Internet-based appointments. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to develop a feasible hybrid audiology service delivery model for older adults. Our results enhance the evidence base for the implementation of telehealth audiology services.

Word-recognition performance in interrupted noise by young listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss.

BACKGROUND: The most common complaint of adults with hearing loss is understanding speech in noise. One class of masker that may be particularly useful in the assessment of speech-in-noise abilities is interrupted noise. Interrupted noise usually is a continuous noise that has been multiplied by a square wave that produces alternating intervals of noise and silence. Wilson and Carhart found that spondaic word thresholds for listeners with normal hearing were 28 dB lower in an interrupted noise than in a continuous noise, whereas listeners with hearing loss experienced only an 11 dB difference. PURPOSE: The purpose of this series of experiments was to determine if a speech-in-interrupted-noise paradigm differentiates better (1) between listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss and (2) among listeners with hearing loss than do traditional speech-in-continuous-noise tasks. RESEARCH DESIGN: Four descriptive/quasi-experimental studies were conducted. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty young adults with normal hearing and 144 older adults with pure-tone hearing losses participated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A 4.3 sec sample of speech-spectrum noise was constructed digitally to form the 0 interruptions per second (ips; continuous) noise and the 5, 10, and 20 ips noises with 50% duty cycles. The noise samples were mixed digitally with the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 words at selected signal-to-noise ratios and recorded on CD. The materials were presented through an earphone, and the responses were recorded and analyzed at the word level. Similar techniques were used for the stimuli in the remaining experiments. RESULTS: In Experiment 1, using 0 ips as the reference condition, the listeners with normal hearing achieved 34.0, 30.2, and 28.4 dB escape from masking for 5, 10, and 20 ips, respectively. In contrast, the listeners with hearing loss only achieved 2.1 to 2.4 dB escape from masking. Experiment 2 studied the 0 and 5 ips conditions on 72 older listeners with hearing loss, who were on average 13 yr younger and more varied in their hearing loss than the listeners in Experiment 1. The mean escape from masking in Experiment 2 was 7dB, which is 20-25 dB less than the escape achieved by listeners with normal hearing. Experiment 3 examined the effects that duty cycle (0-100% in 10% steps) had on recognition performance in the 5 and 10 ips conditions. On the 12 young listeners with normal hearing, (1) the 50% correct point increased almost linearly between the 0 and 60% duty cycles (slope = 4.2 dB per 10% increase in duty cycle), (2) the slope of the function was steeper between 60 and 80% duty cycles, and (3) about the same masking was achieved for the 80-100% duty cycles. The data from the listeners with hearing loss were inconclusive. Experiment 4 varied the interburst ratios (0, -6, -12, -24, -48, and -infinity dB) of 5 ips noise and evaluated recognition performance by 24 young adults. The 50% points were described by a linear regression (R2 = 0.98) with a slope of 0.55 dB/dB. CONCLUSION: The current data indicate that interrupted noise does provide a better differentiation both between listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss and among listeners with hearing loss than is provided by continuous noise.

Utility measures of health-related quality of life in patients treated for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

OBJECTIVES: Comparing the effects of different disorders and interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important for healthcare policy and accountability. There are two basic approaches to measure HRQoL: questionnaires derived from psychometrics and preference-based measures or utilities derived from econometrics. While disease-specific HRQoL questionnaires, such as the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), are important because they focus on the impact of a specific problem and its treatments (i.e., vestibular disorders), economic comparisons of the impacts of diseases/disorders and their treatments are typically based on utility assessment. The utility measures for audiology application (UMAA) were developed to measure utilities for various audiologic conditions using a standard computer. The purpose of this study was to determine if the UMAA provides stable, valid, and sensitive utility measures of the effects of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and its treatment on HRQoL. It was hypothesized that utilities, as measured by the UMAA, would indicate improvement in HRQoL post-treatment for BPPV comparable to a disease-specific health status measure (DHI). DESIGN: The UMAA incorporates three techniques to measure utility: rating scale, standard gamble, and time tradeoff. A utility is a cardinal measure of strength of preference and is measured on a continuum basis from 0.0 (incapacitating dizziness) to 1.0 (no dizziness). Fifty-two adults with BPPV of the posterior semicircular canal completed the UMAA and DHI before treatment and again post-treatment. A subgroup of 15 participants completed the UMAA on two occasions before treatment to assess test-retest stability and to establish critical difference values. RESULTS: Results from this investigation demonstrate that utilities as measured through the UMAA are stable, valid, and comparable to the DHI. Post-treatment utilities were also significantly higher than pretreatment utilities, indicating that the utilities, as measured through the UMAA, are sensitive to improvement in HRQoL after BPPV treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Utilities as measured through the UMAA seem sensitive to changes in HRQoL after treatment of BPPV. Since the UMAA can be used to measure patient preference (i.e., utility), it may be useful for comparison of specific audiologic conditions, such as BPPV, to nonaudiologic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and kidney disease.