Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review

Almufarrij, Ibrahim; Dillon, Harvey; Munro, Kevin J.

doi:10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was also reported in a recent systematic review, although outcomes from an audiogram-based audiologist-fit method were better than the self-fit outcomes. 85…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was also reported in a recent systematic review, although outcomes from an audiogram-based audiologist-fit method were better than the self-fit outcomes. 85 Convery et al 78 showed that two-thirds (68%) of participants were successfully able to self-fit their hearing aids. However, only onethird (37%) did so without any input from a clinical assistant who was available to provide advice and support to the participants.…”

Section: Sensory Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many examples of remote technologies that are clinically effective and provide numerous benefits to adults with hearing loss. Despite this, the uptake of remote technologies for hearing healthcare has been both low and slow until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a key driver for change globally. The time is now right to take advantage of the many benefits that remote technologies offer, through clinical, consumer, or hybrid services and channels. These include greater access and choice, better interactivity and engagement, and tailoring of technologies to individual needs, leading to clients who are better informed, enabled, and empowered to self-manage their hearing loss. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence-base across a range of remote technologies along the hearing health journey. This includes qualitative, as well as quantitative, methods to ensure the end-users' voice is at the core of the research, thereby promoting person-centered principles. Most of these remote technologies are available and some are already in use, albeit not widespread. Finally, whenever new technologies or processes are implemented into services, be they clinical, hybrid, or consumer, careful consideration needs to be given to the required behavior change of the key people (e.g., clients and service providers) to facilitate and optimize implementation.

show abstract

“…This was also reported in a recent systematic review, although outcomes from an audiogram-based audiologist-fit method were better than the self-fit outcomes. 85…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sensory Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Portelli,

Loteta,

Ciodaro

et al. 2024

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing Direct-to-Consumer Devices to Hearing Aids: Amplification Accuracy for Three Types of Hearing Loss

Sheffield,

Jacobs,

Ellis

et al. 2024

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized regulations for over-the-counter hearing aids (OTC-HAs) on August 17, 2022. Little is known about the comparative performance of OTC-HAs and prescription HAs. This study compared amplification accuracy of prescription HAs and direct-to-consumer devices (DTCDs, including personal sound amplification products [PSAPs] and OTC-HAs). Method: Eleven devices were programmed to meet prescriptive targets in an acoustic manikin for three degrees of hearing loss. Devices consisted of high- and low-end HAs, PSAPS, and OTC-HAs. Each was tested, and deviations from target measured with an HA analyzer at every combination of 10 frequencies and low-, average-, and high-level inputs. Accuracy was compared using a multilevel Poisson model with device-specific intercepts controlling for input level, frequency, and device type. Results: For mild–moderate hearing loss, deviations from targets were not statistically different between high- and low-end HAs, but PSAPs (5.50 dB, SE = 0.92 dB) and OTC-HAs (8.83 dB, SE = 1.10 dB) had larger differentials. For flat moderate hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, average differentials were larger for all device types at all input levels and frequencies (Low HA: 3.82 dB, SE = 1.10 dB; PSAP: 9.24 dB, SE = 1.22 dB; OTC-HA: 8.61 dB, SE = 1.19 dB). For mild sloping to severe hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, OTC-HAs (9.72 dB, SE = 1.20 dB) and PSAPs (7.34 dB, SE = 1.07 dB) had larger differentials and significant variability at the highest and lowest frequencies. Half (three) of the PSAPs and OTC-HAs met most targets within ±5 dB. Conclusions: DTCDs were unable to meet prescriptive targets for severe types of hearing loss but could meet them for mild hearing loss. This study provides an examination of current hearing devices. More research is needed to determine whether meeting prescriptive targets provides any benefit in the outcomes and performance with DTCD devices.

show abstract

Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

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

Comparing Direct-to-Consumer Devices to Hearing Aids: Amplification Accuracy for Three Types of Hearing Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About