What Is Important for Hearing Aid Satisfaction? Application of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Model

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (07) ◽  
pp. 644-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Meyer ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Asad Khan ◽  
David Walker
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Consumer Satisfaction ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Expected Performance ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Expectancy Disconfirmation ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Between 68.1–89.5% of clients report that they are satisfied with their hearing aids. Two variables that are thought to contribute to dissatisfaction with hearing aids are product performance, and a mismatch between performance and client prefitting expectations about hearing-aid performance (i.e., disconfirmation). A focus on variables related to satisfaction is relevant to improving hearing rehabilitation services. Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if measures of hearing-aid performance and disconfirmation, specifically related to hearing ability and hearing-aid problems, were associated with overall hearing-aid satisfaction among a sample of hearing-aid users. Research Design: A retrospective research design was employed. Study Sample: A total of 123 individuals participated in the study (57% male; mean age: 72 yr). All participants owned hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: A personal details questionnaire and the Profile of Hearing Aid Consumer Satisfaction questionnaire (Wong et al, 2009) were completed by participants, 3–12 mo after they obtained hearing aids. Overall hearing-aid satisfaction was a dichotomized variable (satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction); therefore, logistic regression modeling was applied to the data to determine which variables were associated with overall hearing-aid satisfaction. Results: Sixty-one percent of the sample reported that they were satisfied with their hearing aids. Hearing-aid satisfaction was associated with the ability to hear with hearing aids and better-than-expected performance in this same area; fewer hearing-aid problems; and fewer problems with hearing-aid manipulation, hearing-aid appearance, and wearer discomfort than were anticipated before hearing-aid fitting. Conclusions: It is recommended that to improve hearing-aid satisfaction, clinicians should ensure optimal hearing-aid benefit in the listening situations that the person with hearing impairment most wants to hear better; reduce the likelihood of hearing-aid problems occurring; and promote positive disconfirmation (performance exceeds expectations) with respect to both hearing ability and hearing-aid performance through the education of clients about the likely benefits of hearing aids in a variety of listening environments, and the potential problems they could face with hearing-aid manipulation and wearer discomfort.

A Clinical Trial of the ReSound BT2 Personal Hearing System

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
Chaslav V. Pavlovic
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Speech Test ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
Hearing System

The Food and Drug Administration requires that hearing aid manufacturers substantiate benefit claims in advertising with clinical research. Recently, Walden (1997) described a model protocol that might be used to assess hearing aid benefit in manufacturer-sponsored clinical trials. The Walter Reed protocol includes laboratory measures of speech recognition ability using the Continuous Speech Test (CST, Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987; Cox, Alexander, Gilmore, & Pusakulick, 1988) and the scales and subscales of the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB, Cox & Gilmore, 1990) to assess user benefit in four prototype listening environments. A clinical trial of the ReSound BT2 Personal Hearing System (BT2 PHS) using the Walter Reed protocol is reported here. The results for 40 adult participants with moderate-to-severe acquired sensorineural hearing losses revealed significant benefit from the BT2 PHS as compared to unaided performance on most of the CST and PHAB measures. Compared to performance (unaided) of persons with normal hearing, the individuals with hearing impairments obtained substantially poorer performance on the CST and reported slightly poorer BT2-aided performance on the PHAB. Finally, on average, participants reported significantly more success on the PHAB with the BT2 PHS as compared to their own linear hearing aids, and 70% of the participants preferred the BT2 PHS enough to be willing to purchase it rather than to continue to use their own government-issued linear hearing aids.

Accuracy of an Automated Hearing Aid Fitting Using Real Ear Measures Embedded in a Manufacturer Fitting Software

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Brockmeyer ◽  
Adam Voss ◽  
Cameron C. Wick ◽  
Nedim Durakovic ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Repeated Measure ◽  
Intersubject Variability ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis

Abstract Background Hearing aid fitting guidelines recommend real ear measures (REM) to verify hearing aid performance. Unfortunately, approximately 70 to 80% of clinicians do not use REM, but instead download manufacturer first-fit. Studies report differences in performance between first-fit and programmed-fit with greatest differences in the higher frequencies. Recently, hearing aid and real ear analyzer (REA) manufacturers allow REA communication with hearing aid software feature to automatically program hearing aids to target. Little research is available reporting the accuracy of this feature. Purpose The aim of the study is to examine whether differences exist at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL between two ReSound first-fit formulae (Audiogram+ and NAL-NL2) using ReSound AutoREM and Aurical NAL-NL2 Research Design The study design is of repeated measure type. Study Sample The study sample includes 48 ears. Data Collection and Analysis For the two fitting formulae, AutoREM real ear insertion gain (REIG) was measured at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL and compared with measures from Aurical NAL-NL2. Results Mean AutoREM REIG for ReSound NAL-NL2 was 3 to 8 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 1 to 3 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 5 dB above for 80 dB SPL. Mean AutoREM REIG for Audiogram + was 1 to 12 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 2 to 5 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 7 dB above NAL-NL2 for 80 dB SPL. Conclusion Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG50 for Audiogram + and ReSound NAL-NL2 was lower. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG65 for Audiogram + was higher at 1,000 Hz and lower at 4,000 to 6,000 Hz and for ReSound NAL-NL2 it was lower at 500 Hz and 4,000 Hz and higher at 3,000 Hz. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG80 for Audiogram + was higher at 500 to 3,000 Hz and 6,000 Hz and ReSound NAL-NL2 was higher at 500 to 6,000 Hz. Because of wide intersubject variability clinicians should continue to use REM as a “check and balance” when using AutoREM.

scholarly journals A Study of Korean Hearing Aid Satisfaction Survey Based on MarkeTrak VIII

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-57
Author(s):  
Sangik Sim ◽  
Junghak Lee ◽  
Jinsook Kim
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cell Phone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Satisfaction Rate ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
The Status ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Purpose: The aim of this study was to survey the satisfaction of hearing aid users in Korea. The questionnaire was designed to find out not only the satisfaction of wearing hearing aid but also the various viewpoints about the hearing aid itself of its wearers.Methods: A total of 118 subjects including 72 males and 46 females completed the survey from 28 hearing aids centers. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part contained the audiological information reported by the experts and the other part included about the information of hearing aid performance, listening environments and related services reported by the hearing aid users.Results: Overall satisfaction rate of hearing aid was 64.4%. About 84% of the subjects answered that the hearing aid made their quality of life improved. The most satisfied function of the hearing aid was ‘overall comfort,’ the most satisfied sound quality was ‘improved hearing ability,’ the most satisfied listening environments was ‘one-to-one conversation,’ and the most satisfied service quality was ‘kindness of the staffs.’ The most important listening situation they thought was ‘communication with cell phone.’ The proportion of using customized hearing aid was 77.9%, bilateral fitting rate was 62.4% and average purchasing price was 1,820,000 won per a unit.Conclusion: The overall hearing aid satisfaction rate (64.4%) was lower than USA (81%) and Germany (76%) but higher than Japan (38%). In Korea, the comprehensive study for the hearing aid market, specific satisfaction viewpoints of the hearing aid wearers and the status of non-wearers who have hearing loss should be needed for improving the user’s hearing aid satisfaction rate in the future.

The Robustness of Hearing Aid Microphone Preferences in Everyday Listening Environments

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (05) ◽  
pp. 358-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
Ken W. Grant ◽  
Van Summers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Laboratory Setting ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Processing Modes ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
High Degree

Automatic directionality algorithms currently implemented in hearing aids assume that hearing-impaired persons with similar hearing losses will prefer the same microphone processing mode in a specific everyday listening environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the robustness of microphone preferences in everyday listening. Two hearing-impaired persons made microphone preference judgments (omnidirectional preferred, directional preferred, no preference) in a variety of everyday listening situations. Simultaneously, these acoustic environments were recorded through the omnidirectional and directional microphone processing modes. The acoustic recordings were later presented in a laboratory setting for microphone preferences to the original two listeners and other listeners who differed in hearing ability and experience with directional microphone processing. The original two listeners were able to replicate their live microphone preferences in the laboratory with a high degree of accuracy. This suggests that the basis of the original live microphone preferences were largely represented in the acoustic recordings. Other hearing-impaired and normal-hearing participants who listened to the environmental recordings also accurately replicated the original live omnidirectional preferences; however, directional preferences were not as robust across the listeners. When the laboratory rating did not replicate the live directional microphone preference, listeners almost always expressed no preference for either microphone mode. Hence, a preference for omnidirectional processing was rarely expressed by any of the participants to recorded sites where directional processing had been preferred as a live judgment and vice versa. These results are interpreted to provide little basis for customizing automatic directionality algorithms for individual patients. The implications of these findings for hearing aid design are discussed. Los algoritmos automáticos de direccionalidad actualmente implementados en auxiliares auditivos asumen que las personas hipoacúsicas con pérdidas similares preferirán el mismo modo de procesamiento del micrófono en los ambientes cotidianos específicos de escucha. El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar la firmeza de las preferencias de micrófonos para la audición cotidiana. Dos personas hipoacúsicas establecieron juicios de preferencia en cuanto a los micrófonos (preferencia omnidireccional, preferencia direccional, sin preferencia) en una variedad de situaciones cotidianas de escucha. Simultáneamente, estos ambientes acústicos fueron registrados a través de modos omnidireccionales y direccionales de procesamiento del micrófono. Las grabaciones acústicas fueron luego presentadas en un contexto de laboratorio para preferencias del micrófono a los dos sujetos originales y a dos sujetos que diferían en su habilidad auditiva y en su experiencia con procesamiento direccional de micrófonos. Los dos sujetos originales pudieron replicar en el laboratorio sus preferencias de micrófono en vivo con un alto grado de exactitud. Esto sugiere que las bases para la preferencia original y aquella en vivo de los micrófonos fueron correctamente representadas en los registros acústicos. Otros participantes con hipoacusia y normoyentes que escucharon los registros ambientales también replicaron con exactitud las preferencias omnidireccionales originales en vivo; sin embargo, las preferencias direccionales no fueron tan consistentes entre todos ellos. Cuando la clasificación de laboratorio no replicó la preferencia direccional de micrófono en vivo, los sujetos casi siempre dejaron de expresar preferencia por ningún modo de micrófono. Por lo tanto, la preferencia para procesamiento omnidireccional raramente fue escogida por ninguno de los participantes para situaciones donde se había preferido el registro direccional como un juicio en vivo y viceversa. Se interpreta que estos resultados aportan poco en la búsqueda de adecuar automáticamente los algoritmos de direccionalidad para pacientes individuales. Se discuten las implicaciones de estos hallazgos en el diseño de auxiliares auditivos.

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.

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.

A Clinical Perspective on Cochlear Dead Regions: Intelligibility of Speech and Subjective Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 600-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill E. Preminger ◽  
Ryan Carpenter ◽  
Craig H. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Perspective ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Cochlear Dead Regions ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Using the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test, 49 subjects with at least two pure-tone thresholds per ear greater than 50 dB HL and none greater than 80 dB HL were evaluated for the presence or absence of dead regions. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the prevalence of cochlear dead regions in this clinical population, (2) measure whether listeners with dead regions performed differently than listeners without dead regions on a speech intelligibility in noise test, and (3) determine whether cochlear dead regions are associated with reduced subjective hearing aid performance. The results showed that (1) twenty-nine percent of the subjects tested positive for dead regions, (2) listeners with dead regions had poorer sentence understanding in noise than listeners without dead regions and (3) listeners with dead regions perceived poorer subjective hearing aid performance in listening environments with reverberation or background noise as compared to those without dead regions.

Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid Fitting in Clinical Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadashi Nishimura ◽  
Hiroshi Hosoi ◽  
Tomoko Sugiuchi ◽  
Nozomu Matsumoto ◽  
Takanori Nishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Severe Stenosis ◽  
Aural Atresia ◽  
New Device ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Purchase Rate ◽  
Fitting In ◽  
Air Conduction ◽  
Assessment Results

Abstract Background Cartilage conduction hearing aids (CCHAs) were newly devised and spread fast in Japan since their launch in 2017. However, little knowledge is available for this new device. Purpose The aim of this study was to establish the knowledge of CCHAs and suggest their indication. Research Design Correlational study. Study Sample A total 256 patients were registered. Data Collection and Analysis The fitting of CCHAs was surveyed in nine institutions. The outcomes were assessed by audiometric tests. The patients were classified into seven groups, depending on the ear conditions. The clinical characteristics, assessment results, and purchase rates were compared among the groups. The assessment results of CCHAs were also compared with those of previously used hearing aids. Results Most patients who used CCHAs were classified into the bilateral closed (aural atresia or severe stenosis) ear (n = 65) or unilateral closed ear (n = 124) groups. The patients in these groups achieved good benefits that resulted in a high purchase rate. The bilateral continuous otorrhea group also supported a high purchase rate, although the benefits of CCHAs were not always excellent. In contrast, the purchase rate was poor in the patients who could use air conduction hearing aids (ACHAs) without absolute problems. As for using a CCHA as a contralateral routing of signals hearing aid, the benefits depended on the patients. Conclusions CCHAs are considered as a great option not only to the patients with closed ears but also to those who had difficulties in ACHAs usage.

Gender Differences in Audiological Findings and Hearing Aid Benefit in 255 Individuals with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder: A Retrospective Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 839-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijaya Kumar Narne ◽  
Prashanth Prabhu ◽  
Hunsur S. Chandan ◽  
Mahadeva Deepthi
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Acoustic Reflexes ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: There are many studies reported in the literature that have summarized audiological findings and possible rehabilitation in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). However, there are very few studies that have attempted to delineate the gender differences in audiological characteristics and hearing aid benefit in individuals with ANSD. Purpose: The study aimed to explore the differences between males and females in terms of demographic details, audiogram, speech identification scores, otoacoustic emissions, acoustic reflexes, long latency responses, and hearing aid benefit. Research Design: A retrospective study. Study Sample: A total of 255 individuals diagnosed with ANSD were selected for the study. The study included 137 females and 88 males. Data Collection and Analysis: The demographic details, results of diagnostic audiological testing, and hearing aid benefit were analyzed retrospectively. The differences in findings across gender were compared. Results: The study shows that females have a relatively higher degree of hearing loss and that the majority of females show a rising type of audiometric configuration. The study shows that females have poorer speech perception abilities and experience limited benefits from hearing aids compared to males. Conclusions: The results of the study show that there are gender differences in audiological findings and hearing aid benefits in individuals with ANSD. However, well-controlled prospective studies are essential to confirm the results obtained and to identify the possible mechanisms underlying the gender differences.

Noise Exposure Associated With Hearing Aid Use in Industry

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Dolan ◽  
James F. Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
High Gain ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Weighted Averages ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Level Meter

Although noise may be innocuous in many vocational environments, there is a growing concern in industry that it can reach hazardous levels when amplified by hearing aids. This study examined the daily noise exposures associated with hearing aid use in industry. This was done by both laboratory and site measurements in which hearing aids were coupled to the microphone of an integrating sound level meter or dosimeter. The former method involved the use of recorded railroad and manufacturing noise and a Bruel and Kjaer 4128 Head and Torso simulator. In the latter procedure, a worker wore one of three hearing aids coupled to a dosimeter during 8-hour shifts in a manufacturing plant. Both methods demonstrated that even when amplified by mild-gain hearing aids, noise exposures rose from time-weighted averages near 80 dBA to well above the OSHA maximum of 90 dBA. The OSHA maximum was also exceeded when moderate and high gain instruments were worn in non-occupational listening environments. The results suggest that current OSHA regulations that limit noise exposure in sound field are inappropriate for hearing aid users.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document