Abbreviated Profile Of Hearing Aid Benefit Research Articles

Open-fitting hearing aids: a comparative analysis between open behind-the-ear and open completely-in-the-canal instant-fit devices.

Our study aims to assess the open-fitting capabilities and vent properties of traditional open-fitting behind-the-ear (open BTE) hearing aids to instant-fit open-fitting completely-in-the-canal (open CIC) systems. The study analysed data from 40 patients grouped in two groups based on the used hearing aids. Free field pure tone and speech audiometry were performed to obtain the free-field pure tone average and free-field word recognition score (WRS). The matrix sentence test was employed to evaluate the auditory performance and functional outcomes of patients. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the personal satisfaction and benefit provided by the hearing aid. Real ear measurements were conducted to objectively evaluate the Real-Ear Unaided Gain (REUG) and Real-Ear Occluded Gain (REOG) of the two groups. For this purpose, six frequency bands (band 1 from 125 to 200Hz, band 2 from 250 to 400Hz, band 3 from 500 to 800Hz, band 4 from 1000 to 1600Hz, band 5 from 2000 to 3150Hz, and band 6 from 4000 to 6300Hz) were defined and compared. Free-field WRS exhibited a significant difference (p-value = 0.004) between open BTE and open CIC, with better results for the open BTE. Matrix test speech reception threshold scores did not differ significantly between groups. No statistical significant difference were observed between APHAB and SADL total scores. Correlation tests revealed a negative correlation between SRT and APHAB scores in the open BTE group, not seen in the open CIC. No statistically significant difference was observed for all bands of REUG values, demonstrating comparability in terms of acoustic resonance of the external auditory canal. Comparing the REOG recorded in the two groups a significant difference was observed for bands 2 through 6. While the average REOG values for bands 5 and 6 were higher in patients with traditional open BTE aids, in contrast, for bands 2, 3, and 4, the REOG values for the open CIC group were higher and statistically significant compared to patients wearing traditional open-fitting BTE hearing aids. Patients with open CIC seem to perform worse in quiet environments compared to noisy ones, as indicated by the free field WRS score. However, the absence of differences in functional performance assessed with the matrix sentence test, and in the psychosocial aspects, makes these devices a good solution for individuals who reject hearing aids due to aesthetic concerns. The differences in terms of real ear measurements, while statistically significant, do not negatively impact overall performance.

Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Fit vs Audiologist-Fit Hearing Aids

With rising interest in over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids as an alternative to traditional audiologist-fit devices, understanding their long-term efficacy is crucial. However, given the novelty of the US Food and Drug Administration category of OTC hearing aids, minimal evidence currently supports their long-term efficacy. To compare the long-term self-reported outcomes at 8 months of self-fit OTC hearing aids to the same hearing aids fit by audiologists. Building on a previous randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a number of the original participants that were not lost to follow-up. Participants were initially divided into those with self-fit OTC hearing aids and those with audiologist-fit devices. Approximately 8 months after fitting, participants completed self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. The original noninferiority trial was conducted at the University of Pretoria in South Africa from April 2022 to August 2022. The current analysis took place between July 7, 2023, to November 20, 2023. In the original trial, participants in the self-fit device group received a pair of OTC hearing aids and independently fit them with remote support as needed. The audiologist-fit device group received the same hearing aids fit by a certified audiologist using best practices. The main outcomes were self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). Of 64 participants in the trial, 44 participants were included in the extension study (21 [47.7%] in the audiologist-fit group; 23 [52.3%] in the self-fit group). The mean (SD) age of these participants was 63.0 (13.2) years, and 21 (47.7%) were male. At the long-term follow-up, self-fit and audiologist-fit groups showed no significant differences in the APHAB global score (mean difference, 0.02 [95% CI, -7.1 to 7.1]; Cohen d, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5]) or the IOI-HA total score (mean difference, 1.5 [95% CI, -1.4 to 4.4]; Cohen d, 0.3 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.8]). From 6 weeks to 8 months, no clinically meaningful group-time interaction was found between groups for the APHAB global score (Cohen d, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.3]), but a significant interaction for the IOI-HA total score was found (Cohen d, -0.6 [95% CI, -0.8 to -0.3]), with the self-fit group generally performing better. This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated that self-fit OTC hearing aids can offer comparable long-term benefits to audiologist-fit hearing aids for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.

Tinnitus reduction after active bone-conduction implantation in patients with single-sided deafness: a prospective multicenter study.

Single-sided deafness (SSD) presents significant challenges for patients, including compromised sound localization, reduced speech recognition, and often, tinnitus. These issues are typically addressed using interventions such as cochlear implantation (CI) and bone conduction implant (BCI). However, evidence regarding the efficacy of BCI in reducing tinnitus in SSD patients remains limited. This study explored the ability of a novel active transcutaneous BCI (Bonebridge BCI602) to alleviate tinnitus in SSD patients. Prospective cohort multicenter study. Tertiary referral hospitals. A prospective multicenter study of 30 SSD patients was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups: those with (n = 19) and without (n = 11) tinnitus. Audiometric assessments, subjective questionnaires including the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSS), and tinnitus evaluations with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and tinnitogram were conducted before and after BCI surgery. THI scores after surgery were significantly reduced in SSD patients with tinnitus. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups; however, the former group exhibited a significantly greater improvement in the APHAB questionnaire score. According to tinnitograms, the loudness of tinnitus decreased, particularly in patients with ipsilateral tinnitus. Patients with residual hearing had greater reductions in their THI scores. However, three patients without residual hearing had a relative worsening of tinnitus after surgery. The Bonebridge BCI602 effectively reduced tinnitus in SSD patients, particularly in those with residual hearing. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups. These findings demonstrate the therapeutic potential of BCI for managing SSD and associated tinnitus.

Tinnitus reduction after active bone-conduction implantation in patients with single-sided deafness: a prospective multicenter study.

Single-sided deafness (SSD) presents significant challenges for patients, including compromised sound localization, reduced speech recognition, and often, tinnitus. These issues are typically addressed using interventions such as cochlear implantation (CI) and bone conduction implant (BCI). However, evidence regarding the efficacy of BCI in reducing tinnitus in SSD patients remains limited. This study explored the ability of a novel active transcutaneous BCI (Bonebridge BCI602) to alleviate tinnitus in SSD patients. Prospective cohort multicenter study. Tertiary referral hospitals. A prospective multicenter study of 30 SSD patients was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups: those with (n = 19) and without (n = 11) tinnitus. Audiometric assessments, subjective questionnaires including the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Bern Benefit in Single-Sided Deafness (BBSS), and tinnitus evaluations with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and tinnitogram were conducted before and after BCI surgery. THI scores after surgery were significantly reduced in SSD patients with tinnitus. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups; however, the former group exhibited a significantly greater improvement in the APHAB questionnaire score. According to tinnitograms, the loudness of tinnitus decreased, particularly in patients with ipsilateral tinnitus. Patients with residual hearing had greater reductions in their THI scores. However, three patients without residual hearing had a relative worsening of tinnitus after surgery. The Bonebridge BCI602 effectively reduced tinnitus in SSD patients, particularly in those with residual hearing. Subjective satisfaction improved in both the tinnitus and non-tinnitus groups. These findings demonstrate the therapeutic potential of BCI for managing SSD and associated tinnitus.

Binaural hearing in monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with unilateral Bonebridge.

To determine the benefits of binaural hearing rehabilitation in patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss treated with a unilateral bone conduction implant (BCI). This monocentric study includes 7 patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss who underwent surgical implantation of a unilateral BCI (Bonebridge, Med-El). An ITA Matrix test was performed by each patient included in the study - without and with the BCI and in three different settings - to determine the summation effect, squelch effect and head shadow effect. Subjective hearing benefits were assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. The difference in signal to noise ratio of patients without and with BCI was 0.79 dB in the summation setting (p < 0.05), 4.62 dB in the head shadow setting (p < 0.05) and 1.53 dB (p = 0.063) in the squelch setting. The APHAB questionnaire revealed a subjective discomfort in the presence of unexpected sounds in patients using a unilateral BCI (aversiveness score) compared to the same environmental situations without BCI, with a mean discomfort score of 69.00% (SD ± 21.24%) with monaural BCI versus 25.67% (SD ± 16.70%) without BCI (difference: -43.33%, p < 0.05). In terms of global score, patients wearing a unilateral Bonebridge implant did not show any significant differences compared to those without hearing aid (difference: -4.00%, p = 0.310). Our study shows that the use of a unilateral BCI in patients affected by monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss can improve speech perception under noise conditions due to the summation effect and to the decrease of the head shadow effect. However, since monaural BCIs might lead to discomfort under noise conditions in some subjects, a pre-operative assessment of the possible individual benefit of a monaural BCI should be carried out in patients affected by unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss in order to investigate the possible additional effect of the fitting of hearing aids.

Functional outcomes for speech-in-noise intelligibility of NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescriptive fitting rules in hearing aid users.

The primary aim of this research study is to assess whether differences exist in the application of the NAL-NL2 and DSL v.5 prescription formulas in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. Data from 43 patients, were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were patients with bilateral conductive, sensorineural, or mixed hearing loss, already using hearing aids for at least 1year, and aged 18years or older. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the prescriptive method employed by the hearing aid: NAL-NL2 or DSL v.5. Pure tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free field pure tone and speech audiometry withthehearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was used to assess the personal audiological benefit provided bythe hearing aid. No statistically significant differences were found comparing the free-field pure tone average (FF PTA) and the free-field Word Recognition Score (FF WRS). Comparing the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) parameter of patients with NAL-NL2 vs DSL v.5, no statistically significant difference was found, thus highlighting a condition of comparability between the two prescription methods in terms of speech-in-noise intelligibility. Comparing the results of the APHAB questionnaire, no statistically significant differences were evident for all subscales and overall benefit. When conducting a comparison between male and female patients using the NAL-NL2 method, no differences were observed in SRT values, however, the APHAB questionnaire revealed a difference in the AV subscale score for the same subjects. Our analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in speech-in-noise intelligibility, as measured by the SRT values from the Matrix Sentence Test, when comparing the two prescriptive methods. This compelling result reinforces the notion that, functionally, both methods are comparably effective in enhancing speech intelligibility in real-world, noisy environments. However, it is crucial to underscore that the absence of differences does not diminish the importance of considering individual patient needs and preferences in the selection of a prescriptive method.

Validity and reliability of the ERSA questionnaire in Turkish.

This methodological study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Evaluation of the Impact of Hearing Loss in Adults (ERSA) questionnaire for individuals with treated hearing loss. The study involved 200 participants, and both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine structural validity. External validity was assessed by correlating ERSA scores with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient, respectively. The Turkish ERSA demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with significant correlations between APHAB and ERSA scores and excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The findings suggest that the Turkish ERSA is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the impact of hearing loss in individuals.

Combining MUSHRA Test and Fuzzy Logic in the Evaluation of Benefits of Using Hearing Prostheses

Assessing the effectiveness of hearing aid fittings based on the benefits they provide is crucial but intricate. While objective metrics of hearing aids like gain, frequency response, and distortion are measurable, they do not directly indicate user benefits. Hearing aid performance assessment encompasses various aspects, such as compensating for hearing loss and user satisfaction. The authors suggest enhancing the widely used APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire by integrating it with the MUSHRA test. APHAB, a self-completed questionnaire for users, evaluates specific sound scenarios on a seven-point scale, with each point described by a letter, percentage, and description. Given the complexities, especially for older users, we propose converting the seven-point APHAB scale to a clearer 100-point MUSHRA scale using fuzzy logic rules. The paper starts with presenting the goals of the study, focused on the assessment of the benefits of hearing aid use, especially in the case of the elderly population. The introductory part includes an overview of methods for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing aid use. Then, the methodology for the data collection is presented. This is followed by a method modification that combines the MUSHRA (MUltiple Stimuli with Hidden Reference and Anchor) test and fuzzy logic processing and the commonly used hearing aid benefit assessment questionnaire, APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit). The results of such a process are examined. A summary of the findings is given in the form of fuzzy logic-based rules, followed by a short discussion. Finally, the overall conclusion and possible future directions for the method development are presented.

Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants.

Patients with acochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for anew speech processor every 6years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades. Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction. The speech processor upgrade resulted in asignificant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dBsignal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, asignificant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006).A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified aproportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry. There was asignificant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only asmall improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants. German version

Patients with acochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for anew speech processor every 6years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades. Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction. The speech processor upgrade resulted in asignificant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dBsignal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, asignificant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006).A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified aproportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry. There was asignificant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only asmall improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

Comparison of Active Bone Conduction Hearing Implant Systems in Unilateral and Bilateral Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss.

To assess and compare binaural benefits and subjective satisfaction of active bone conduction implant (BCI) in patients with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with bilateral BCI and patients with monaural conductive hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI. ITA Matrix test was performed both on patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural bone conduction hearing implant (Bonebridge, Med-El) before and after implantation of contralateral bone conduction hearing implant and on patients with monaural conductive or mixed hearing loss before and after implantation of monaural BCI. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire was administered to both groups of subjects and the results were compared with each other. Patients of group 1 reported a difference of 4.66 dB in the summation setting compared to 0.79 dB of group 2 (p < 0.05). In the squelch setting, group 1 showed a difference of 2.42 dB compared to 1.53 dB of group 2 (p = 0.85). In the head shadow setting, patients of group 1 reported a difference of 7.5 dB, compared to 4.61 dB of group 2 (p = 0.34). As for the APHAB questionnaire, group 1 reported a mean global score difference of 11.10% while group 2 showed a difference of -4.00%. Bilateral BCI in patients affected by bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss might show more advantages in terms of sound localisation, speech perception in noise and subjective satisfaction if compared to unilateral BCI fitting in patients affected by unilateral conductive hearing impairment. This may be explained by the different individual transcranial attenuation of each subject, which might lead to different outcomes in terms of binaural hearing achievement. On the other hand, patients with unilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss fitted with monaural BCI achieved good results in terms of binaural hearing and for this reason, there is no absolute contraindication to implantation in those patients.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Short-term Hearing Aid Use in Patients with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss

The study presents evaluating the effectiveness of the hearing aid fitting process in the short-term use (7 days). The evaluation method consists of a survey based on the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Additional criteria such as a degree of hearing loss, number of hours and days of hearing aid use as well as the user’s experience were also taken into consideration. The outcomes of the benefit obtained from the hearing aid use in various listening environments for 109 hearing aid users are presented, including a degree of their hearing loss. The research study results show that it is possible to obtain relevant and reliable information helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the shortterm (7 days) hearing aid use. The overall percentage of subjects gaining a benefit when communicating in noise is the highest of all the analyzed and the lowest in the environment with reverberation. The statistical analysis performed confirms that in the listening environments in which conversation is held, a subjective indicator determined by averaging benefits for listening situations individually is statistically significant with respect to the degree of hearing loss. Statistically significant differences depending on the degree of hearing loss are also found separately for noisy as well as reverberant environments. However, it should be remembered that this study is limited to three types of hearing loss, i.e. mild, moderate and severe. The acceptance of unpleasant sounds gets the lowest rating. It has also been observed that in the initial period of hearing aid use, the perception of unpleasant sounds has a big influence on the evaluation of hearing improvement.

Audiological benefit, quality of life, and factors associated with functional gain in elderly hearing aid users in a developing country between 2017 and 2020: a pre-post-study

BackgroundSensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is the most common auditory deficit in older adults and may lead to quality-of-life deterioration. However, few studies have been performed in low/middle-income countries, particularly in Latin America. This study aimed to assess the audiological benefit, quality of life, and factors associated with functional gain in elderly hearing aid users in the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá and UNIMEQ-ORL, two otology referral centers in Colombia.DesignPre-post study that included hearing aid users at the otology consult of the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá and UNIMEQ-ORL between June 2017 and December 2020. Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaires were applied. Audiometric (0,5 kHz to 4 kHz) and speech audiometry results were collected.ResultsA total of 75 participants (132 ears) were included. The mean age was 70.73 years (SD: 12.66). The median hearing aid use in years was 0.71 (IQR: 0.64–0.90). Mean change in speech audiometry was − 26.53dB (95%CI: -28.09, -24.97; p < 0.001), in functional gain was − 21.75dB (-23.81, -19.68; p < 0.001). The mean changes in the APHAB domains were Ease of Communication: -37.85 (95%CI: -43.01; -32.7), Background Noise: -3.51 (-6.06; -0.95), and Aversiveness of Sounds: -6.9 (-2.04; 11.77). The GBI assessment of quality of life showed improvement in 100% of the population after the use of hearing aids. The number of years of hearing aids use was associated with functional gain.ConclusionThe number of years of hearing aids use may impact on the functional gain in these populations. A significant clinical benefit was found in terms of quality of life, communication, and reverberation related to the use of hearing aids. Access to hearing aids should be granted, and public health strategies are needed to grant the access to hearing rehabilitation in these populations.Trial registrationFundación Santa Fe de Bogotá (Protocol Number: CCEI-12666-2020).

Effectiveness of an Over-the-Counter Self-fitting Hearing Aid Compared With an Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited. To compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices. This randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial. A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction. The primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks). Sixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures. In this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

Speech Perception in Noise and Sound Localization for Cochlear Implant With Single-Sided Deafness Compared With Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids.

Cochlear implantation (CI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD) is a relatively new treatment modality. Although comparing the effectiveness of CI and contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aids (HAs) is important, very few reports on this topic exist. In this study, objective assessments and subjective assessments were conducted to determine which SSD individuals would prefer CI or CROS HAs. Objective assessments (speech perception and sound localization) and subjective assessments (Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), MOS Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2)) were performed on 87 SSD patients. Of the 87 SSD patients, 33 patients hoped for CROS HAs, and 17 patients hoped for CI. The CI group underwent subjective and objective assessments at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The CROS HAs group underwent objective assessments at 1 month after wearing CROS HAs. After the intervention, the localization ability was significantly improved in the CI group (p < 0.05) with no significant improvement in that of the CROS HAs group (p = 0.48). No significant improvement in speech perception in noise was observed in the CROS (Signal-to-Noise ratio + 10, p = 0.08; SN + 0, p = 0.17); however, a significant improvement in the CI group was observed at 12 months postoperatively. The APHAB subscale "background noise" and SF-36v2 health concepts of role-physical, general health, vitality, role-emotional, and mental health were significantly higher in the CI group. CI was superior to CROS HAs in speech perception in terms of noise and sound localization. Patients with postlingual acute-onset hearing loss and more handicaps and a more positive view of their hearing loss possibly tend to choose CI.

Synchronous remote fine-tuning and follow-up within aural rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial

Objective The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of including synchronous remote fine-tuning and follow-up as a part of the aural rehabilitation process. Design A randomised controlled trial (RCT). Study sample Experienced hearing aid users who were due for renewed aural rehabilitation were randomised to either an intervention group (n = 46) or a control group (n = 49). Both groups underwent all stages of the conventional renewed aural rehabilitation process within our clinics, but the intervention group was also offered remote follow-up visits, including an opportunity for synchronous remote fine-tuning of hearing aids. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults (HHIE/A), the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), and the International Outcome Intervention for Hearing Aid Users (IOI-HA) were used as outcome measures. Results Both groups improved in self-rated hearing difficulties and hearing aid benefits measured with HHIE/A and APHAB. No significant differences were found between the intervention and the control group. Conclusion Including synchronous remote follow-up and fine-tuning as a part of an aural rehabilitation process may effectively complement clinical visits. Additionally, the synchronous remote follow-up has the potential to further develop person-centred care by enabling hearing aid users to identify individual needs directly in an everyday environment.

Audiological assessment with Matrix sentence test of percutaneous vs transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aids: a pilot study.

The study evaluated if there were differences between two types of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA), percutaneous vs transcutaneous implants in terms of audiological and psychosocial outcomes. Eleven patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss in the implanted ear with a bone conduction pure-tone average (BC PTA) of the hearing threshold at 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000Hz ≤ 55dB HL, aged > 5years. Patients were assigned to two groups: percutaneous implant (BAHA Connect) and transcutaneous implant (BAHA Attract). Pure-tone audiometry, speech audiometry, free-field pure-tone and speech audiometry with the hearing aid, and Matrix sentence test were performed. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) were used to assess the psychosocial and audiological benefits provided by the implant, and the variation in the quality of life after the surgery. No differences were found comparing the data of Matrix SRT. APHAB and GBI questionnaires did not show a statistically significant difference comparing each subscale and the global score. The comparison of scores obtained from the SADL questionnaire demonstrated a difference in the "Personal Image" subscale with a better score for the transcutaneous implant. Furthermore, the Global Score of the SADL questionnaire was statistically different between groups. Other subscales did not show any significant difference. A Spearman's ρ correlation test was used to evaluate if the age could influence the SRT results; no correlation was found between age and SRT. Furthermore, the same test was used to confirm a negative correlation between SRT and the global benefit of the APHAB questionnaire. The current research confirms the absence of statistically significant differences comparing percutaneous and transcutaneous implants. The Matrix sentence test has shown the comparability of the two implants in the speech-in-noise intelligibility. Actually, the choice of the implant type can be done according to the patient's personal needs, the surgeon's experience, and the patient anatomy.

Investigation of hearing aid fitting according to the national acoustic laboratories’ prescription for non-linear hearing aids and the desired sensation level methods in Japanese speakers: a crossover-controlled trial

ObjectiveSome studies have directly compared the National Acoustic Laboratories’ prescription for non-linear hearing aids (HAs) version 2 (NAL-NL2) and Desired Sensation Level for non-linear HAs version 5 (DSLv5), although none were performed in Japan. As the Japanese language is a tonal language that has different linguistic characteristics than those of the studied languages, we compared the outcomes of the NAL-NL2 and DSLv5 in hearing-impaired Japanese participants. MethodsA crossover-controlled trial was conducted on 18 first-time HA users with bilateral moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Participants wore HAs adjusted with each prescriptive method for four weeks. The prescriptions were assessed using speech discrimination testing and the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Consequently, participants were asked to select their preferred prescription and determine which was better for “listening to a conversation” and when “noisy.” ResultsThe mean DSLv5 real ear insertion gain for an input level of 65 dB sound pressure level (SPL) was higher than that of the NAL-NL2 at 250 and 500 Hz. The average speech discrimination score was 78 ± 14% at a 65-dB SPL and 75 ± 17% at an 80-dB SPL for the NAL-NL2, and 79 ± 11% at a 65-dB SPL and 77 ± 17% at an 80-dB SPL for the DSLv5. These differences were not significant. No significant differences were observed in APHAB subscale scores between the two prescription methods. Ultimately, 11 (61%) and 7 (39%) participants preferred the NAL-NL2 and DSLv5, respectively, with no significant differences. ConclusionAlthough the gain of the NAL-NL2 is smaller than that of the DSLv5, both had the same hearing effect. Therefore, the NAL-NL2 may be more useful than the DSLv5 in Japanese.

“I do not hear you!”: hearing-impaired cancer patients report their communication experiences

PurposeHearing impairment has a high impact on communication between cancer patients and their oncologists. What is the patient’s perspective on this problem and how can physicians draw lessons from it?MethodsTogether with otorhinolaryngologists and hearing-impaired patients, we developed a questionnaire including the sections: WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (5 items), Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as established self-estimation of hearing function (24 items), use of hearing aid (4 items) as well as patients’ experiences (15 items), difficulties (9 items) and wishes (7 items) regarding the communication with physicians. The experiences, difficulties, wishes, and life satisfaction of cancer patients were analyzed between groups based on participants' APHAB scores, well-being and use of hearing aids. A total of 104 cancer survivors (median age 76.5 years, range 32–90 years) were included.ResultsBetween the groups of subjectively hearing-impaired and normal hearing participants, we registered a significant difference in difficulties in conversation, wishes for physician–patient communication and psychological well-being. Depending on participants’ well-being, wishes and difficulties differed. Differences were also found between participants with and without hearing aids in terms of difficulties in conversation, but not in terms of their wishes and well-being. A large proportion of participants classified as subjectively hearing-impaired according to APHAB already had a hearing aid.ConclusionsCancer patients with hearing loss are very restricted in their understanding of given information and hearing aid use cannot completely compensate for this. Consequently, communication guidelines should be considered and specific educational tools need to be developed for these groups.

Comparison of Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) Questionnaires in a Large Cohort of Self-Reported Normal-Hearing Adult Listeners.

The Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) are two most commonly used questionnaires in the audiology clinic to assess an individual's self-perception of their hearing ability. Here, we present the outcomes of these two questionnaires on a large group of self-reported normal hearing adult listeners. A total of 254 self-reported normal-hearing younger and older adults completed the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaire. The younger participants completed the questionnaires through Qualtrics, whereas the older participants completed the questionnaire through Qualtrics and a traditional pen-and-paper method. The younger listeners perceived a higher ability compared to the older adults in all the SSQ subscales (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities) and reported a lesser frequency of the problems in three of the four APHAB subscales (Ease of communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise). There was no significant difference in the frequency of the problems reported in the Aversiveness subscale. Self-reported normal-hearing listeners do not rate their listening ability at the top of the ability scale. Additionally, the large dataset presented here has a potential normative value for the SSQ and the APHAB questionnaires for self-reported normal-hearing adult listeners.