MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Hearing loss: a global health issue

Looi LM, Ganten D, McGrath PF, Gross M, Griffin GE

Lancet, 2015 Mar 14;385(9972):943-4.
PMID: 25743174 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60208-2
Matched MeSH terms: Hearing Loss/therapy
Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility

Ching TY, Quar TK, Johnson EE, Newall P, Sharma M

J Am Acad Audiol, 2015 Mar;26(3):260-74.
PMID: 25751694 DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.3.6

BACKGROUND: An important goal of providing amplification to children with hearing loss is to ensure that hearing aids are adjusted to match targets of prescriptive procedures as closely as possible. The Desired Sensation Level (DSL) v5 and the National Acoustic Laboratories' prescription for nonlinear hearing aids, version 1 (NAL-NL1) procedures are widely used in fitting hearing aids to children. Little is known about hearing aid fitting outcomes for children with severe or profound hearing loss.
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.

Matched MeSH terms: Hearing Loss/therapy*
Meeting the Best Practice for Hearing Aid Verification in Children: Challenges and Future Directions

Amri NA, Quar TK, Chong FY

Am J Audiol, 2019 Dec 16;28(4):877-894.
PMID: 31600460 DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJA-18-0156

Purpose This study examined the current pediatric amplification practice with an emphasis on hearing aid verification using probe microphone measurement (PMM), among audiologists in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Frequency of practice, access to PMM system, practiced protocols, barriers, and perception toward the benefits of PMM were identified through a survey. Method A questionnaire was distributed to and filled in by the audiologists who provided pediatric amplification service in Klang Valley, Malaysia. One hundred eight (N = 108) audiologists, composed of 90.3% women and 9.7% men (age range: 23-48 years), participated in the survey. Results PMM was not a clinical routine practiced by a majority of the audiologists, despite its recognition as the best clinical practice that should be incorporated into protocols for fitting hearing aids in children. Variations in practice existed warranting further steps to improve the current practice for children with hearing impairment. The lack of access to PMM equipment was 1 major barrier for the audiologists to practice real-ear verification. Practitioners' characteristics such as time constraints, low confidence, and knowledge levels were also identified as barriers that impede the uptake of the evidence-based practice. Conclusions The implementation of PMM in clinical practice remains a challenge to the audiology profession. A knowledge-transfer approach that takes into consideration the barriers and involves effective collaboration or engagement between the knowledge providers and potential stakeholders is required to promote the clinical application of evidence-based best practice.

Matched MeSH terms: Hearing Loss/therapy
Standardized questions in English for estimating tinnitus prevalence and severity, hearing difficulty and usage of healthcare resources, and their translation into 11 European languages

Biswas R, Lugo A, Gallus S, Akeroyd MA, Hall DA

Hear Res, 2019 06;377:330-338.
PMID: 30853349 DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.02.008

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence estimates depend largely on the nature of the question asked to define the presence of the health condition, and the literature on the population burden of tinnitus and hearing difficulties is no different in this respect. The lack of standardized questions for data collection limits comparison across studies and across countries. The purpose of this short Technical Note is to report the first attempt to establish a set of standard questions developed for use in population-based surveys, and their adaptation and translation from English into 11 European languages.
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.

Matched MeSH terms: Hearing Loss/therapy