DESIGN: Searches were performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool and Melnyk Levels of Evidence were used to assess quality and level of evidence of eligible studies. Behaviours of hearing healthcare professionals were summarised descriptively.
STUDY SAMPLE: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Twelve studies described behaviours of audiologists and five studies were intervention studies. Audiologists were typically task- or technically-oriented and/or dominated the interaction during hearing aid consultations. Two intervention studies suggested that use of motivational interviewing techniques by audiologists may increase hearing aid use in patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies of clinicians' behaviours were descriptive, with very little research linking clinician behaviour to patient outcomes. The present review sets the research agenda for better-controlled intervention studies to identify which clinician behaviours better promote patient hearing aid outcomes and develop an evidence base for best clinical practice.
METHODS: Four questions and their corresponding response options were adapted from existing population-based surveys to assess tinnitus prevalence, tinnitus symptom severity, use of healthcare resources for tinnitus and hearing difficulty. The translated versions (Bulgarian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, and Spanish) were generated using recognized methods to achieve a "world-for-world" translation.
RESULTS: Translated versions were produced with acceptable functional equivalence to the original English-language version, as judged by a small panel of bilingual speakers who participated in the online field testing.
CONCLUSION: This work is the first of its kind to promote multi-national standardization by creating a set of tools that can readily be used across countries. These are currently being used in a European-wide study of tinnitus prevalence, and have wider application across English- and Spanish speaking countries including the Americas and Oceania.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.
STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.
RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.
CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate prevalence and secular trends in children's hearing loss.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1996 to August 2017.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included epidemiologic studies in English reporting hearing loss prevalence.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The modified Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen tool was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses combined study-specific estimates using random-effects models.
PARTICIPANTS: Children 0 to 18 years of age.
RESULTS: Among 88 eligible studies, 43.2% included audiometric measurement of speech frequencies. In meta-analyses, pooled prevalence estimates of slight or worse bilateral speech frequency losses >15 decibels hearing level (dB HL) were 13.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-17.0). Using progressively more stringent cutpoints, pooled prevalence estimates were 8.1% (95% CI, 1.3-19.8) with >20 dB HL, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) with >25 dB HL, 1.8% (95% CI, 0.4-4.1) with >30 dB HL, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.1-2.6) with >40 dB HL. Also, 8.9% (95% CI, 6.4-12.3) had likely sensorineural losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1) had self-reported hearing loss. From 1990 to 2010, the prevalence of losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears rose substantially (all P for trend
METHODS: A total of 301 older adults (⩾60 years of age) participating in a study on aging had their hearing tested using pure-tone audiometry. Self-perceived hearing loss was assessed using a single question. Sociodemographic profile, otologic history, and general cognitive status were also obtained.
RESULTS: A single question had low sensitivity in detecting actual hearing loss: 31.3% for 4-frequency average > 25 dBHL and 48.8% for 4-frequency average > 40 dBHL. Besides hearing level, history of otorrhea and tinnitus were factors that were associated with self-perceived hearing loss among older adults with at least mild hearing loss. Hearing-help-seeking behavior was not associated with any of the tested variables. The hearing aid adoption rate was 2.7% and 7.3% among participants with 4-frequency averages > 25 dBHL and > 40 dBHL, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The underestimation of hearing loss in the majority of older adults in this study poses a potential barrier to hearing loss intervention.