Better Together. Group versus individual Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for tinnitus: A Multiple-Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic tinnitus is effectively treated through cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Both group and individual CBT for tinnitus are effective, but no study has directly compared the two. The current study explores group versus individual CBT for tinnitus. DESIGN: A multiple-baseline single-case experimental design was employed to observe changes within/between individual and group treatments. Six participants started a 10-week CBT protocol and were equally divided into individual or group treatment. Participants were exchanged between treatments at random time points. Diary data included 14 variables on tinnitus experience (e.g. annoyance and distraction) and wellbeing (e.g. happiness and stress). Five male participants (59- to 67-year-old) completed treatment. RESULTS: Randomization tests comparing means between individual and group treatments did not reveal significant differences. Analysis of data overlap and trend (Tau-U) revealed minor significant improvements for seven variables (50%) in group treatment as compared to individual treatment. Diminished happiness and activity levels were observed in participants who went from group to individual treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Low effect sizes and homogeneity of sample restrict the generalizability of data. Group CBT indicated potential benefits when compared to individual CBT. Social learning may be an underlying process in group delivery boosting tinnitus recovery. Findings are limited to male patients with chronic disabling tinnitus.

The Daily Experience of Subjective Tinnitus: Ecological Momentary Assessment Versus End-of-Day Diary.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional methods of self-report assessments are susceptible to bias (i.e., memory, recall, and recency). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may curb these biases by repeated momentary assessment of the participant throughout the day. High costs and participant burden may, however, impede the use of EMA. End-of-day diary (EDD) provides an attractive alternative to EMA, though no direct comparison has been performed in the tinnitus field. DESIGN: Four thousand seven-hundred thirty-two data entries were collected from nine participants undergoing cognitive behavioral treatment for tinnitus. Eleven equivalent EMA and EDD items were collected for approximately 3 months. Tinnitus experience (i.e., anger, annoyance, avoidance, distraction, fear, invasiveness, pleasantness, and sadness) and well-being (i.e., anxiety, happiness, and stress) were correlated and means compared (t-tests). RESULTS: All variables presented adequate correlation (r > 0.68) between the EMA and EDD counterparts. Small (<3.9%) significant daily mean differences between EMA and EDD were found for six variables (tinnitus anger, invasiveness, pleasantness, sadness, as well as anxiety and stress) with worse results reported in EDD. CONCLUSION: The small significant effects found may be attributed to the large number of data points. When EMA is not possible or recommended, EDD provides a viable alternative to assess tinnitus experience daily. Further research on the underlying mechanisms of tinnitus experience and recollection is warranted.

Effects of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) induced monitoring on tinnitus experience: A multiple-baseline single-case experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method capable of assessing tinnitus experience throughout the day, enabling the exploration of daily dynamic changes of tinnitus expression. However, the effects on patients' tinnitus experience itself are still largely unknown. This study seeks to test the hypothesis that the use of EMA negatively influences tinnitus experience in participants with severe tinnitus. METHOD: A multiple-baseline single-case experimental design included four severely affected tinnitus volunteers who were recruited online and randomized into different phasing schedules. Baseline phase (A) ranged from 11 to 24 days, followed by an EMA phase (B) for the remainder of the 33-day schedule. End-of-day diary assessments of tinnitus experience (e.g., annoyance, intrusiveness, mood) were visually inspected, and complemented with inferential statistics (randomization tests and Tau-U). RESULTS: End-of-day diary data revealed no change in broadened median between phases. Nevertheless, tinnitus experience scores improved as variability decreased and a significant improvement in stress was observed through weighted Tau-U statistics. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study corroborate that EMA assessment does not negatively affect tinnitus experience. On the contrary, participants may have improved. The underlying mechanism of improvements are still to be uncovered. Findings are limited to severely affected tinnitus sufferers at present.

Investigating tinnitus subgroups based on hearing-related difficulties.

PURPOSE: Meaningfully grouping individuals with tinnitus who share a common characteristics (ie, subgrouping, phenotyping) may help tailor interventions to certain tinnitus subgroups and hence reduce outcome variability. The purpose of this study was to test if the presence of tinnitus subgroups are discernible based on hearing-related comorbidities, and to identify predictors of tinnitus severity for each subgroup identified. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional study was used. The study was nested within an online survey distributed worldwide to investigate tinnitus experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main outcome measure was the tinnitus Handicap Inventory- Screening Version. RESULTS: From the 3400 respondents, 2980 were eligible adults with tinnitus with an average age of 58 years (SD = 14.7) and 49% (n = 1457) being female. A three-cluster solution identified distinct subgroups, namely, those with tinnitus-only (n = 1306; 44%), those presenting with tinnitus, hyperacusis, hearing loss and/or misophonia (n = 795; 27%), and those with tinnitus and hearing loss (n = 879; 29%). Those with tinnitus and hyperacusis reported the highest tinnitus severity (M = 20.3; SD = 10.5) and those with tinnitus and no hearing loss had the lowest tinnitus severity (M = 15.7; SD = 10.4). Younger age and the presence of mental health problems predicted greater tinnitus severity for all groups (ß ≤ -0.1, P ≤ .016). CONCLUSION: Further exploration of these potential subtypes are needed in both further research and clinical practice by initially triaging tinnitus patients prior to their clinical appointments based on the presence of hearing-related comorbidities. Unique management pathways and interventions could be tailored for each tinnitus subgroup.

Suggestions for shaping tinnitus service provision in Western Europe: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus severity has been exacerbated because of the COVID-19 pandemic and those with tinnitus require additional support. Such support should be informed by patient preferences and needs. The objective of this study was to gather information from individuals with tinnitus living in Europe to inform stakeholders of the (a) support they needed in relation to changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and (b) suggestions regarding tinnitus care for the future. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed method study design was used using closed and open-ended questions via an online survey. Data were gathered from 710 adults experiencing tinnitus in Western Europe, with the majority living in The Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Those with tinnitus indicated the following support needs during the pandemic (a) support for tinnitus, (b) support for hearing-related difficulties, (c) social support and (d) pandemic-related support. Five directions for future tinnitus care were provided, namely, (a) need for understanding professional support and access to multidisciplinary experts, (b) greater range of therapies and resources, (c) access to more information about tinnitus, (d) prioritising tinnitus research and (e) more support for hearing protection and hearing loss prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The findings point to the need for accessible (remote), patient-centred, suitable and evidence-based tinnitus care. Insights from the current study can be used by various stakeholders including clinical practitioners and tinnitus support services to ensure those with tinnitus have access to the help and support required in order to reduce service provision insufficiencies.

Changes in Tinnitus Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted delivery of healthcare, economic activity, and affected social interactions. Identifying and supporting those most affected by the pandemic is required. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on individuals with tinnitus and to identify mediating factors. Methods: This is a mixed-methods exploratory cross-sectional study, using data collected via an online survey from 3,103 individuals with tinnitus from 48 countries. The greatest representation was from North America (49%) and Europe (47%) and other countries were only marginally represented. Results: Although the study was aimed at those with pre-existing tinnitus, 7 individuals reported having COVID-19 initiated tinnitus. Having COVID-19 symptoms exacerbated tinnitus in 40% of respondents, made no change in 54%, and improved tinnitus in 6%. Other mediating factors such as the social and emotional consequences of the pandemic made pre-existing tinnitus more bothersome for 32% of the respondents, particularly for females and younger adults, better for 1%, and caused no change to tinnitus for 67%. Pre-existing tinnitus was significantly exacerbated for those self-isolating, experiencing loneliness, sleeping poorly, and with reduced levels of exercise. Increased depression, anxiety, irritability, and financial worries further significantly contributed to tinnitus being more bothersome during the pandemic period. Conclusions: These findings have implications for tinnitus management, because they highlight the diverse response both internal and external factors have on tinnitus levels. Clinical services should be mindful that tinnitus may be caused by contracting COVID-19 and pre-existing tinnitus may be exacerbated, although in the majority of respondents there was no change. Additional support should be offered where tinnitus severity has increased due to the health, social, and/or emotional effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tinnitus may be more bothersome for those experiencing loneliness, having fewer social interactions, and who are more anxious or worried.