Objective: Primarily to understand whether clinically relevant factors affect the International Outcome Inventory (IOI-HA) scores and to examine if IOI-HA scores improve when renewing the hearing aids (HA) for experienced users. Secondly, to estimate the overall HA effectiveness using the IOI-HA. Design: A prospective observational study. Study sample: In total, 1961 patients with hearing loss were included. All patients underwent a hearing examination, were fitted with HAs, and answered the IOI-HA. Factor analysis of IOI-HA separated the items into a Factor 1 (use of HA, perceived benefits, satisfaction, and quality of life) and Factor 2 (residual activity limitation, residual participation restriction and impact on others) score. Results: Degree of hearing loss, word recognition score, motivation, HA usage time, tinnitus, asymmetry, and sex were significantly associated with total IOI-HA, Factor 1, or Factor 2 scores. The seven IOI-HA items increased on average by 0.4 (p < 0.001) when renewing HAs. The total median IOI-HA score at follow-up was 29 (7) for experienced (n ¼ 460) and first-time users (n ¼ 1189), respectively. Conclusions: Degree of hearing loss, word recognition score, motivation, tinnitus, asymmetry, and sex may be used to identify patients who require special attention to become successful HA users.

No abstract

(1) Background: To improve hearing-aid rehabilitation, the Danish ‘Better hEAring Rehabilitation’ (BEAR) project recently developed methods for individual hearing loss characterization and hearing-aid fitting. Four auditory profiles differing in terms of audiometric hearing loss and supra-threshold hearing abilities were identified. To enable auditory profile-based hearing-aid treatment, a fitting rationale leveraging differences in gain prescription and signal-to-noise (SNR) improvement was developed. This report describes the translation of this rationale to clinical devices supplied by three industrial partners. (2) Methods: Regarding the SNR improvement, advanced feature settings were proposed and verified based on free-field measurements made with an acoustic mannikin fitted with the different hearing aids. Regarding the gain prescription, a clinically feasible fitting tool and procedure based on real-ear gain adjustments were developed. (3) Results: Analyses of the collected real-ear gain and SNR improvement data confirmed the feasibility of the clinical implementation. Differences between the auditory profile-based fitting strategy and a current ‘best practice’ procedure based on the NAL-NL2 fitting rule were verified and are discussed in terms of limitations and future perspectives. (4) Conclusion: Based on a joint effort from academic and industrial partners, the BEAR fitting rationale was transferred to commercially available hearing aids.

To provide clinical guidance in hearing aid prescription for older adults with presbycusis, we investigated differences in self-reported hearing abilities and hearing aid effectiveness for premium or basic hearing aid users. Secondly, as an explorative analysis, we investigated if differences in gain prescription verified with real-ear measurements explain differences in self-reported outcomes. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the patients were blinded towards the purpose of the study. In total, 190 first-time hearing aid users (&gt;60 years of age) with symmetric bilateral presbycusis were fitted with either a premium or basic hearing aid. The randomization was stratified on age, sex, and word recognition score. Two outcome questionnaires were distributed: the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the short form of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-12). In addition, insertion gains were calculated from real-ear measurements at first-fit for all fitted hearing aids. Premium hearing aid users reported 0.7 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher total SSQ-12 score per item and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.4) scale points higher speech score per item, as well as 0.6 (95%CI: 0.2; 1.1) scale points higher qualities score compared to basic-feature hearing aid users. No significant differences in reported hearing aid effectiveness were found using the IOI-HA. Differences in the prescribed gain at 1 and 2 kHz were observed between premium and basic hearing aids within each company. Premium-feature devices yielded slightly better self-reported hearing abilities than basic-feature devices, but a statistically significant difference was only found in three out of seven outcome variables, and the effect was small. The generalizability of the study is limited to community-dwelling older adults with presbycusis. Thus, further research is needed for understanding the potential effects of hearing aid technology for other populations. Hearing care providers should continue to insist on research to support the choice of more costly premium technologies when prescribing hearing aids for older adults with presbycusis.Clinical Trial Registration:https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04539847.

Purpose: This study was aimed at understanding the effect of time taken to adapt to the new hearing aids (HAs) and the timeline of HA adjustments performed over more than a year of rehabilitation on self-reported HA outcomes. Method: A self-report of the time it took to get accustomed to the new HAs and adjustment of the HAs during a year of rehabilitation collected from 690 HA users using a nonstandardized questionnaire were analyzed. The abbreviated version of the Speech, Spatial, and Quality of Hearing questionnaire and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids were used as the self-reported HA outcome. Result: Out of 690 participants, 442 (64%) got accustomed to HAs within 2 months. Ninety-one participants (13%) did not get accustomed to the HAs at all, out of which 74 (81%) were first-time HA users. Eighty-four participants (12%) did not receive any HA adjustments after their initial fitting, and 49 (7%) had their HAs adjusted four or more times during the 1 year of rehabilitation. Three hundred ninety (57%) participants got their HA adjusted only at the 2-month follow-up visit, showing the intent to adjust given an opportunity. The stepwise multiple linear regression results showed the significant impact of getting accustomed to the HA and having HA adjusted at multiple instances on the self-reported HA outcomes. Conclusion: This study showed the importance of getting accustomed to the HA and having a minimal number of adjustments to have a better long-term self-reported HA outcome.