scholarly journals How do Hearing Aid Owners Acquire Hearing Aid Management Skills?

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (06) ◽  
pp. 516-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Bennett ◽  
Carly J. Meyer ◽  
Robert H. Eikelboom
Keyword(s):  
Concept Mapping ◽  
Skill Acquisition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hierarchical Cluster ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Professional Relationship ◽  
Training Support ◽  
Hearing Health

AbstractClinical studies have found up to 90% of hearing aid owners demonstrate difficulty with basic hearing aid management tasks and almost 50% of hearing aid owners self-report not receiving enough practical help from their clinician regarding how to use their hearing aid. Although studies have highlighted the overwhelming amount of information and training required to learn how to use a hearing aid appropriately, a gap remains in the literature regarding the range of methods by which hearing aid owners acquire the knowledge and skills for hearing aid use, and whether these approaches are considered beneficial.To gain insight into how both hearing aid owners and hearing health clinicians view the acquisition of hearing aid management skills and the efficacy of currently used methods of hearing aid training.Concept mapping techniques were used to identify key themes, wherein participants generated, sorted, and rated the importance of statements in response to the question “How do hearing aid owners learn the skills required to use, handle, manage, maintain, and care for their hearing aids?”Twenty-four hearing aid owners (aged 56–91 years; 54.2% male) and 22 clinicians (aged 32–69 years; 9.1% male).Participant perspectives were collected via group concept mapping sessions in October 2015. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify themes and develop a framework for understanding how skill acquisition occurs. Participants rated each method of hearing aid skill acquisition as to how beneficial it was and how often it was used.Participants identified 75 unique items describing how hearing aid management skills are acquired within six concepts: (1) Relationship with the clinician, (2) clinician as a source of knowledge and support, (3) hands-on experience, (4) seeking additional information, (5) asking support people for help, and (6) external resources.The results of this study highlight the diverse methods and sources by which hearing aid owners learn the skills necessary to use, manage, and maintain their hearing aids. Significant emphasis was placed on the role of the hearing health clinician to provide training, support, and an ongoing professional relationship, with lesser roles played by family, friends, and other health professionals.

Investigating the Knowledge, Skills, and Tasks Required for Hearing Aid Management: Perspectives of Clinicians and Hearing Aid Owners

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Bennett ◽  
Carly J. Meyer ◽  
Robert H. Eikelboom ◽  
Marcus D. Atlas
Keyword(s):  
Concept Mapping ◽  
Skill Acquisition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Clinical Recommendations ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Mapping Techniques ◽  
To Come

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify hearing aid owners' and clinicians' opinions of the knowledge, skills, and tasks required for hearing aid management and the importance of each of these to overall success with hearing aids. Method Concept mapping techniques were used to identify key themes, wherein participants generated, sorted, and rated the importance of statements in response to the question “What must hearing aid owners do in order to use, handle, manage, maintain, and care for their hearing aids?” Twenty-four hearing aid owners (56 to 91 years of age; 54.2% men, 45.8% women) and 22 clinicians (32 to 69 years of age; 9.1% men, 90.9% women) participated. Result Participants identified 111 unique items describing hearing aid management within 6 concepts: (a) “Daily Hearing Aid Use,” (b) “Hearing Aid Maintenance and Repairs,” (c) “Learning to Come to Terms with Hearing Aids,” (d) “Communication Strategies,” (e) “Working With Your Clinician,” and (f) “Advanced Hearing Aid Knowledge.” Clinicians' opinions of the importance of each statement varied only slightly from the opinions of the hearing aid owner group. Hearing aid owners indicated that all 6 concepts were of similar importance, whereas clinicians indicated that the concept “Advanced Hearing Aid Knowledge” was significantly less important than the other 5 concepts. Conclusion The results highlight the magnitude of information and skill required to optimally manage hearing aids. Clinical recommendations are made to improve hearing aid handling education and skill acquisition.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

Hearing Aid Review Appointments: Attendance and Effectiveness

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Bennett ◽  
Erin Kosovich ◽  
Steff Cohen ◽  
Cara Lo ◽  
Kevin Logan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Attendance Rates ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Appointment Attendance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Travel Distances

Purpose This study aimed to (a) identify participant factors associated with hearing aid review (HAR) appointment attendance, (b) investigate whether the completion of self-report survey identifying hearing aid–related problems affects HAR appointment attendance, and (c) investigate whether hearing aid problems and hearing aid management deficiencies are adequately addressed during HAR appointments. Method A prospective cohort study of adult hearing aid owners recruited from a single hearing clinic in Western Australia. Potential participants were invited to an annual HAR appointment via postal letter. The invitation included a paper-based self-report survey evaluating either (a) hearing aid problems, (b) hearing aid management skills, or (c) hearing aid outcomes, depending on which intervention/control group the potential participants were assigned to, and a reply paid addressed envelope. Two months later, potential participants were sent all three paper-based self-report surveys, irrespective of whether they had attended or not attended an HAR appointment. Results (a) There was no significant difference in gender or source of funding for hearing services between HAR appointment attendees and nonattendees. HAR nonattendees lived a greater distance from their clinic and were younger than attendees. (b) Survey completion did not influence HAR appointment attendance rates. (c) A significant reduction in individuals' self-reported hearing aid problems was recorded following the attendance at the HAR appointment. No significant changes in hearing aid management skills or overall hearing aid outcomes were detected. Conclusions Long travel distances may be a barrier to attendance at review appointments. HAR appointments appear to be effective in improving hearing aid problems.

Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures Following One Month of Hearing Aid Use by the Elderly

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Carolyn B. Garner ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Class D

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid outcome measures obtained from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers following one month of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids having linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Outcome measures included several measures of speech recognition, as well as several self-report measures of hearing-aid performance, benefit, satisfaction, and use. Comparison of mean data from this sample of hearing-aid wearers to other larger sets of data, obtained previously for several of these measures of hearing-aid outcome evaluated in isolation, indicated that the participants in this study were representative of the participants in other largerscale studies. Subsequent principal-components factor analysis of the data from this study indicated that there were seven distinct dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Attempts to document the effectiveness and efficacy of hearing aids for elderly persons with impaired hearing will be most complete when assessing performance along all seven dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Clinically efficient procedures for doing so are discussed.

Description, Normative Data, and Utility of the Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge Test

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 233-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Charlotte Morse-Fortier ◽  
Daniel J. McDermott ◽  
Jay J. Vachhani ◽  
Leslie D. Grush ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Intrarater Reliability ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Additional Education ◽  
And Training

AbstractThe ability to manage hearing aids is crucial for successful outcomes and for maintaining hearing aid use. It is therefore important to have a tool that can effectively identify which hearing aid management skills are lacking so that the audiologist can provide additional education and training on that skill. Such a tool can also provide useful quantitative data for researchers.To collect normative data (Experiment 1) and assess inter- and intrarater reliability (Experiment 2) for a hearing aid management assessment tool known as the Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge (HASK) test.Two hundred thirty-six new hearing aid users recruited from the VA Portland Health Care System and 126 experienced hearing aid users recruited from the local Portland community participated in Experiment 1. The veteran participants were taking part in a larger hearing aid study, and the community participants were recruited at community events that took place around Portland, OR. Three clinical audiologists and two AuD students completing their fourth year externship participated in Experiment 2.In Experiment 1, HASK data were collected from the new hearing aid users at 4–8 wk and 6–8 mo after the fitting of their first pair of hearing aids, and from experienced users on a single occasion. In addition, self-reported hearing aid use, benefit, and satisfaction were assessed for all participants. The audiologists/students in Experiment 2 watched and independently scored videos of six individuals completing the HASK. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) across audiologists were computed for HASK scores. Three audiologists/students rated at least one video on two occasions to provide interrater reliability data.Mean performance on the HASK was about 70% for knowledge and 80% for skills for both the new and experienced hearing aid users. Performance did not change among the new users between the 4–8 wk and 6–8 mo administration. The specific skills lacking were associated with advanced management abilities (cleaning and troubleshooting). Experiment 2 revealed ICCs for inter- and intrarater reliability for HASK to range from 0.76 to 0.94, showing acceptable to excellent reliability.The HASK is a quick and easy test with good-to-excellent inter- and intrarater reliability. It can effectively identify which hearing aid management skills are lacking so that the audiologist can provide additional education and training on those skills. Data show performance is ∼70% for knowledge and 80% for skills and this does not change with hearing aid experience. The significant positive correlations between HASK scores and hearing aid use and satisfaction highlight the notion that ability to manage hearing aids successfully is integral to good hearing aid outcome.

Patterns of Hearing Aid Usage Predict Hearing Aid Use Amount (Data Logged and Self-Reported) and Overreport

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 187-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Laplante-Lévesque ◽  
Claus Nielsen ◽  
Lisbeth Dons Jensen ◽  
Graham Naylor
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Available N ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Previous studies found that, on average, users overreport their daily amount of hearing aid use compared to objective measures such as data logging. However, the reasons for this are unclear. Purpose: This study assessed data-logged and self-reported amount of hearing aid use in a clinical sample of hearing aid users. It identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport. Research Design: This observational study recruited adult hearing aid users from 22 private dispensers in the Netherlands and in Denmark. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 228 hearing aid users. Typical participants were over the age of 65 and retired, were fitted binaurally, and had financially contributed to the cost of their hearing aids. Participants had on average a mild-to-severe sloping bilateral hearing impairment. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed a purposefully designed questionnaire regarding hearing aid usage and the International Outcome Inventory—Hearing Aids. Dispensers collected audiometric results and data logging. Multiple linear regression identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport when controlling for covariates. Results: Data logging showed on average 10.5 hr of hearing aid use (n = 184), while participants reported on average 11.8 hr of daily hearing aid use (n = 206). In participants for which both data-logged and self-reported hearing aid use data were available (n = 166), the average absolute overreport of daily hearing aid use was 1.2 (1 hr and 11 min). Relative overreport was expressed as a rate of absolute overreport divided by data-logged hearing aid use. A positive rate denotes hearing aid use overreport: the average overreport rate was .38. Cluster analysis identified two data-logged patterns: “Regular,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for between 12 and 20 hr before their user powers them off (57% of the sample), and “On-off,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for shorter periods of time before being powered off (43% of the sample). In terms of self-report, 77% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be the same every day, while 23% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be different from day to day. Participants for whom data logging showed an On-off pattern or who reported their hearing aid use to be different from day to day had significantly fewer data-logged and self-reported hours of hearing aid use. Having an On-off data-logging pattern or describing hearing aid use as the same every day was associated with a significantly greater hearing aid use overreport. Conclusions: Data-logged and self-reported usage patterns significantly predicted data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and overreport when controlling for covariates. The results point to patterns of hearing aid usage as being at least as important a concept as amount of hearing aid use. Dispensers should discuss not only the “how much”, but also the “how” of hearing aid usage with their clients.

Style Preference Survey: A Report on the Psychometric Properties and a Cross-Validation Experiment

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 089-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherri L. Smith ◽  
Todd Ricketts ◽  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm ◽  
Genevieve Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Initial Experiment ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Validation Experiment ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

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.

Use of Hearing Aids and Assistive Listening Devices in an Older Australian Population

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 642-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hartley ◽  
Elena Rochtchina ◽  
Philip Newall ◽  
Maryanne Golding ◽  
Paul Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Older People ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Australian Population ◽  
Factors Associated

Background: Hearing loss is a common sensory impairment experienced by older persons. Evidence shows that the use of hearing aids and/or assistive listening devices (ALDs) can benefit those with a hearing loss but that historically the uptake and use of these technologies has remained relatively low compared with the number of people who report a hearing loss. Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, usage, and factors associated with the use of hearing aids and ALDs in an older representative Australian population. Research Design: A population-based survey. Study Sample: A total of 2956 persons out of 3914 eligible people between the ages of 49 and 99 yr (mean age 67.4 yr), living in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, completed a hearing study conducted from 1997 to 2003. Data Collection and Analysis: Hearing levels were assessed using pure tone audiometry, and subjects were administered a comprehensive hearing survey by audiologists, which included questions about hearing aid and ALD usage. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with hearing aid and ALD usage. Results: Of the surveyed population, 33% had a hearing loss as measured in the better ear. 4.4% had used an ALD in the past 12 mo, and 11% owned a hearing aid. Of current hearing aid owners, 24% never used their aids. ALD and hearing aid usage were found to be associated with increasing age, hearing loss, and self-perceived hearing disability. Conclusions: These results indicate that hearing aid ownership and ALD usage remains low in the older population. Given the significant proportion of older people who self-report and have a measured hearing loss, it is possible that more could be helped through the increased use of hearing aid and/or ALD technology. Greater efforts are needed to promote the benefits of these technologies and to support their use among older people with hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document