Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hearing loss is one of the most common chronic disabilities in older adults, yet reported rates of users' satisfaction with hearing aids are low. Some believe that physicians can provide patients who are pursuing a hearing aid fitting an impartial opinion that will improve hearing aid satisfaction. Objective: To determine whether a physician consultation increased or decreased patients' satisfaction with hearing aids compared with patients undergoing hearing aid fitting with a dispensing audiologist alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, parallel-group, standard regimen-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted in offices of audiologists, family physicians, and a hospital-based neurotologist in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and recruited participants from July 2016 to December 2020 with a 3-month postintervention follow-up. The final data analysis was conducted on March 25, 2022. Adult first-time hearing aid users with averaged sensorineural hearing losses of more than 25 dB were prospectively allocated by random number generation to control and intervention groups. Participants were excluded from analysis if they did not attend follow-up or complete the study questionnaire. Interventions: Control participants were followed up solely by their dispensing audiologist. The intervention group attended a single structured visit with a physician in addition to their audiologist's determined follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: hearing aid satisfaction 3 months postfitting as measured by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire. Secondary outcome: number of returned hearing aids. Prerecruitment null hypothesis: no intergroup difference in postfitting hearing aid satisfaction. Intergroup difference in mean SADL questionnaire scores analyzed by effect size and the Student t test and proportion of returned hearing aids by the Fischer exact test. Results: A total of 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [8.5] years; 64 women [48.1%]) were recruited. Of these, 51 randomized to the control group (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [8.3] years; 28 women [54.9%]) and 42 to the physician intervention (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [7.6] years; 17 women [40.5%]) had results that were analyzed. There was no clinically meaningful intergroup difference in participants' SADL scores (control: mean [SD] score, 5.33 [0.72]; physician consultation: mean [SD] score, 5.35 [0.61]), the mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.29), or returned hearing aids (control, 1; physician consultation, 0). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a physician consultation that is focused on hearing change does not alter a patient's satisfaction with hearing aids 3 months postfitting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02842905.

Slow Cortical Potentials and Amplification-Part II: Acoustic Measures.

In a previous study, we investigated slow cortical potential (SCP) N1-P2 amplitudes and N1 latencies in aided and unaided conditions, with the finding that despite being set to provide 20 or 40 dB of gain, none of the hearing aids resulted in a reliable increase in SCP response amplitude relative to the unaided (Marynewich et al., in press). The current study investigates the effects of hearing-aid processing on acoustic measures for two 1000-Hz tonal stimuli: short (60 ms) and long (757 ms), presented at three intensities (30, 50, 70 dB SPL) in aided and unaided conditions using three hearing aids (Analog, DigitalA, DigitalB) with two gain settings (20, 40 dB). Acoustic results indicate that gain achieved by the hearing aids, measured at 30 ms after stimulus onset, for both the short and long stimuli, was less than real-ear insertion gain measured with standard hearing aid test signals. Additionally, the digital hearing aids altered the rise time of the stimuli such that maximum gain was reached well past 30 ms after stimulus onset; rise times differed between the digital aids. These results indicate that aided SCP results must be cautiously interpreted and that further research is required for clinical application.

Slow cortical potentials and amplification-part I: n1-p2 measures.

Slow cortical potentials (SCPs) are currently of great interest in the hearing aid fitting process for infants; however, there is conflicting evidence in the literature concerning the use of SCPs for this purpose. The current study investigated SCP amplitudes and latencies in young normal-hearing listeners in response to a 60 ms duration tonal stimulus (1000 Hz) presented at three intensities (30, 50, and 70 dB SPL) in aided and unaided conditions using three hearing aids (Analog, DigitalA, and DigitalB) with two gain settings (20 and 40 dB). Results showed that SCP amplitudes were smaller for the digital hearing aids compared with the analog hearing aid, and none of the hearing aids resulted in a reliable increase in response amplitude relative to the unaided across conditions. SCP latencies in analog conditions were not significantly different from latencies in the unaided conditions; however, both digital hearing aids resulted in significantly delayed SCP latencies. The results of the current study (as well as several previous studies) indicate that the SCP may not accurately reflect the amplified stimulus expected from the prescribed hearing aids. Thus, "aided-SCP" results must be interpreted with caution, and more research is required concerning possible clinical use of this technique.