ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study explored user perspectives on the relationship between hearing aid cost and uptake, as well as cost-related recommendations for others with hearing difficulties, in a sample of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid users. METHOD: A secondary analysis was conducted on a cross-sectional survey using qualitative content analysis to analyze responses related to the cost of hearing aids. The study included a total of 241 adult participants, comprising 179 prescription hearing aid users from the Hearing Tracker website and 62 OTC hearing aid users from the Lexie Hearing U.S. database. RESULTS: Prescription users had a mean age of 66.7 years (SD = 13.2), including 62.0% males, 37.4% females, and 0.6% nonbinary individuals. OTC users had a mean age of 63.0 years (SD = 13.4), with 48.4% males and 51.6% females. Three overarching domains were identified: perceived enablers to hearing aid uptake related to the cost, perceived barriers to hearing aid uptake related to the cost, and recommendations to others with hearing difficulties related to the cost, with 14 categories recognized for prescription users and 12 for OTC users. Both groups identified the high cost of hearing aids and lack of insurance coverage as significant barriers to uptake. Many prescription users reported external support (e.g., financial support and health insurance coverage) as an enabler, while OTC users frequently mentioned the affordability of OTC devices. The most common recommendation among prescription users was to seek professional support, whereas OTC users recommended researching hearing aids before making a purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Cost and insurance coverage consistently emerge as primary barriers to hearing aid adoption for both prescription and OTC users. To foster greater accessibility, initiatives should target these financial obstacles. Additional research is warranted on the relationship between hearing aid cost and uptake, especially among OTC users and those seeking financial assistance. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26496922.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Fewer than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids due to barriers like high cost. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids offer a potential solution, incorporating self-fitting strategies via smartphone apps. Self-fitting strategies have been validated for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved OTC hearing aids compared with prescription-based approaches. However, no direct comparative analysis exists between in situ audiometry and self-adjustment strategies using self-fitting OTC (OTC-SF) hearing aids. Objective: To compare self-adjustment and in situ audiometry self-fitting strategies in OTC-SF hearing aids for adults with mild to moderate hearing difficulties. Design Settings and Participants: A crossover, within-participant pseudorandomized clinical trial was conducted between July and November 2023. Twenty-eight participants were pseudo-randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 self-fitting strategies, and they experienced both interventions for 4 consecutive weeks. Interventions: The self-adjustment group manually adjusted settings, including overall gain and spectral tilt, using Lexie B2 hearing aids, while the in situ audiometry group used Lexie B2 Plus hearing aids (Lexie Hearing by hearX Group), with an automated fitting based on in situ tests conducted through the app. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary outcomes were International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), speech-in-noise tests (DIN and QuickSIN), and real-ear measurements (REMs). Measures were completed at baseline and after the 4-week field trial using each strategy. Results: Twenty-eight participants (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [12.0] years) were included; 14 men and 14 women. Self-adjustment and in situ audiometry strategies produced no clinically meaningful differences across various outcome measures, including overall APHAB benefit (Cohen d = 0.2; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6) and overall IOI-HA satisfaction (Rosenthal r = 0.0; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2). Self-adjustment users reported higher satisfaction (Rosenthal r = -0.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) and longer daily use (Rosenthal r = -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.0) compared with those using in situ audiometry. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in speech-in-noise benefit and real-ear measurements. Conclusion and Relevance: In this clinical trial of OTC-SF hearing aids, self-adjustment and in situ audiometry strategies resulted in similar outcomes. However, self-adjustment may produce higher satisfaction and longer daily use, highlighting the potential advantages of active user involvement in the fitting process. Further investigation is needed for long-term outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05782153.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the audiological and non-audiological factors that influence hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction in adults based on studies published during the last decade (2010 and 2023). DESIGN: Studies were identified by using PRISMA guidelines for systematic searches on five platforms (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost including CINAHL and Academic Search Complete). The National Institute of Health Quality assessment tool and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine tool were used for quality assessment and grading of level of evidence. RESULTS: Forty-six articles were included in the review. A total of 101 significant factors influencing hearing aid use (n = 47), benefit (n = 17) and satisfaction (n = 37) were identified. Clear determinants of hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction included hearing sensitivity, self-reported hearing difficulty, speech perception, attitude and beliefs. 34 cross-sectional studies in this review were graded level 4, 9 cohort studies rated level 3, and 3 randomised control trials rated level 2. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with hearing aid outcomes identified in the past decade support previous evidence. New factors like social networks and service-delivery models, have also been identified. These factors require further investigations through high quality studies to further strengthen existing evidence.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the main reasons for hearing aid uptake from a user perspective and recommendations to others with hearing difficulties. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was used. Responses to a single open-ended question were analysed using qualitative content analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants (n = 642) included adult hearing aid users sampled from the Hearing Tracker website community and Lexie Hearing user databases in the United States. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 65.4 years (13.7 SD) and included 61.8% males, 37.7% females, 0.3% non-binary, and 0.2% preferred not to say. Reasons for hearing aid uptake were categorised into three domains (personal impact, social difficulties, and auditory difficulties), containing 11 main categories and 48 sub-categories. User recommendations to others with hearing difficulties constituted eight main categories (timely help, trial period, support, affordability, technology, direct-to-consumer hearing aids, adjustments, and advocacy) and 32 sub-categories. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to take up hearing aids included intrinsic factors like readiness to change and extrinsic factors such as the availability of finances. The most frequent recommendation to others was not to delay seeking hearing help and to get hearing aids. Our findings may support strategies to facilitate behaviour change for improved hearing aid uptake.
ABSTRACT
This systematic review examined the audiological and nonaudiological factors that influence hearing help-seeking and hearing aid uptake in adults with hearing loss based on the literature published during the last decade. Peer-reviewed articles published between January 2011 and February 2022 were identified through systematic searches in electronic databases CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE. The review was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA protocol. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventy (42 audiological and 28 nonaudiological) hearing help-seeking factors and 159 (93 audiological and 66 nonaudiological) hearing aid uptake factors were investigated with many factors reported only once (10/70 and 62/159, respectively). Hearing aid uptake had some strong predictors (e.g., hearing sensitivity) with others showing conflicting results (e.g., self-reported health). Hearing help-seeking had clear nonpredictive factors (e.g., education) and conflicting factors (e.g., self-reported health). New factors included cognitive anxiety associated with increased help-seeking and hearing aid uptake and urban residency and access to financial support with hearing aid uptake. Most studies were rated as having a low level of evidence (67%) and fair quality (86%). Effective promotion of hearing help-seeking requires more research evidence. Investigating factors with conflicting results and limited evidence is important to clarify what factors support help-seeking and hearing aid uptake in adults with hearing loss. These findings can inform future research and hearing health promotion and rehabilitation practices.
Subject(s)
Deafness , Hearing Aids , Hearing Loss , Humans , Adult , Hearing Aids/psychology , Hearing , Hearing Loss/diagnosis , Hearing Loss/therapy , Hearing Loss/psychologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: More than a billion adolescents and youngsters are estimated to be at risk of acquiring recreational noise-induced hearing loss (RNIHL) due to the unsafe use of personal audio systems. RNIHL is preventable; therefore, the present study aimed to determine (i) the accuracy and reliability of dbTrack (Westone) sound-level monitoring earphones and (ii) the effect of sound-level monitoring earphones with smartphone feedback and hearing-health information as an intervention to promote healthy listening behaviors in young adults. DESIGN: The study consisted of two phases: the first phase investigated the accuracy and reliability of dbTrack sound-level monitoring earphones. Accuracy was determined by comparing earphone measurements to sound level meter measurements. Intradevice reliability was determined by comparing earphone measurements during test-retest conditions. Nineteen participants were recruited through convenience sampling to determine within-subject reliability by comparing in-ear sound levels measured by the earphones during test-retest conditions. For the second phase of the study, a single-group pretest-posttest design was utilized. Forty participants, recruited through snowball sampling, utilized the sound-level monitoring earphones with the accompanying dbTrack smartphone application for 4 weeks. The application's smartphone feedback was disabled during the first 2 weeks (pretest condition) and enabled during the last 2 weeks (posttest condition). Average daily intensities, durations, and sound dosages measured during pre- and posttest conditions were compared. RESULTS: Phase 1 dbTrack earphone measurements were within 1 dB when compared with sound level meter measurements. Earphones were also within 1 dB in repeated measures across earphones and across participants. Phase 2 posttest average daily intensity decreased by 8.7 dB (18.3 SD), duration decreased by 7.6 minutes (46.6 SD), and sound dose decreased by 4128.4% (24965.5% SD). Differences in intensity and sound dose were significantly lower with a small and medium effect size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study's preliminary data indicate that dbTrack (Westone) sound-level monitoring earphones with a calibrated in-ear microphone can reliably and accurately measure personal audio systems sound exposure. Preliminary results also suggest that feedback on sound exposure using the accurate sound-level monitoring earphones with the accompanying dbTrack application can potentially promote safe listening behavior in young adults and reduce the risk of acquiring an RNIHL.