Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2020 May;13(2):141-147. 10.21053/ceo.2019.00871.

Assessment of Objective Audiometry to Predict Subjective Satisfaction in Patients With Hearing Aids

• Kwak MY
• Choi WR
• Park JW
• Hwang EJ
• Ha YR
• Chung JW
• Kang WS

• KMID: 2500286
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2019.00871

Abstract

Objectives
. To investigate the correlation of objective audiometry with user satisfaction as measured with the questionnaire scores.
Methods
. Twenty patients with hearing loss, who agreed to wear a hearing aid and were referred for hearing aid fitting, were included in this prospective clinical study. All patients used the in-the-canal type of Wide7 hearing aid provided by BSL Co., Ltd. We performed the Korean version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (K-HHIE) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) before and 1, 3, and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid. We also performed pure tone audiometry (PTA), speech audiometry (SA), functional gain (FG), hearing in noise test (HINT), and central auditory processing disorder tests, such as frequency pattern test (CA-f), duration pattern test (CA-d), and dichotic test (CA-Di). Patients were divided into two groups (group A-HHIE, improved; group B-HHIE, same or worse) by comparing the score of K-HHIE before and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid. In the 6-month K-IOI-HA questionnaire, 21 points were considered as the average score. Based on this, we further divided patients into two groups (group A-IOI, >21 points; group B-IOI, ≤21 points).
Results
. Group A-HHIE included six patients and group B-HHIE included 14 patients. In PTA, SA, HINT, CA-d, and CA-Di, group A-HHIE showed higher improvements than group B-HHIE, which were not statistically significant. Group A-IOI included 12 patients and group B-IOI included eight patients. No statistically significant difference was noted in the improvement of audiometric results over a period of 6 months after wearing the hearing aid between groups A-IOI and B-IOI.
Conclusion
. There were no significant and consistent audiometric results to reflect patient’s satisfaction with the hearing aid. Therefore, when analyzing the hearing aid-fitting outcome, both the objective audiometric tests and subjective questionnaire should be performed together for validating hearing aid performance.

Keyword

Hearing Aids; Audiometry

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Objective audiometric test results before and 1, 3, and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid (A-HHIE, six patients; B-HHIE, 14 patients). HHIE, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; PTA, pure tone audiometry; SDS, speech discrimination score; HINT, hearing in noise test; SNR, signal-to-noise ratio; CA-f, central auditory frequency pattern test; CA-d, central auditory duration pattern test; CA-Di, central auditory dichotic test. *Repeated measures analysis of variance.

• 

  Fig. 2. Objective audiometric test results before and 1, 3, and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid (A-IOI, 12 patients; B-IOI, eight patients). IOI, International Outcome Inventory; PTA, pure tone audiometry; SDS, speech discrimination score; HINT, hearing in noise test; SNR, signal-to-noise ratio; CA-f, central auditory frequency pattern test; CA-d, central auditory duration pattern test; CA-Di, central auditory dichotic test. *Repeated measures analysis of variance.

Reference

1. Schoevers RA, Beekman AT, Deeg DJ, Geerlings MI, Jonker C, Van Tilburg W. Risk factors for depression in later life; results of a prospective community based study (AMSTEL). J Affect Disord. 2000; Aug. 59(2):127–37.

2. Gopinath B, Hickson L, Schneider J, McMahon CM, Burlutsky G, Leeder SR, et al. Hearing-impaired adults are at increased risk of experiencing emotional distress and social engagement restrictions five years later. Age Ageing. 2012; Sep. 41(5):618–23.

3. Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS, et al. Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1990; Aug. 113(3):188–94.

4. Weinstein BE. Treatment efficacy: hearing aids in the management of hearing loss in adults. J Speech Hear Res. 1996; Oct. 39(5):S37–45.

5. Chien W, Lin FR. Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2012; Feb. 172(3):292–3.

6. Moon IJ, Baek SY, Cho YS. Hearing aid use and associated factors in South Korea. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; Oct. 94(42):e1580.

7. Roth TN, Hanebuth D, Probst R. Prevalence of age-related hearing loss in Europe: a review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; Aug. 268(8):1101–7.

8. Kahveci OK, Miman MC, Okur E, Aycicek A, Sevinc S, Altuntas A. Hearing aid use and patient satisfaction. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2011; May-Jun. 21(3):117–21.

9. Smeeth L, Fletcher AE, Ng ES, Stirling S, Nunes M, Breeze E, et al. Reduced hearing, ownership, and use of hearing aids in elderly people in the UK--the MRC Trial of the Assessment and Management of Older People in the Community: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2002; Apr. 359(9316):1466–70.

10. Bertoli S, Staehelin K, Zemp E, Schindler C, Bodmer D, Probst R. Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants. Int J Audiol. 2009; Apr. 48(4):183–95.

11. Gianopoulos I, Stephens D, Davis A. Follow up of people fitted with hearing aids after adult hearing screening: the need for support after fitting. BMJ. 2002; Aug. 325(7362):471.

12. Hartley D, Rochtchina E, Newall P, Golding M, Mitchell P. Use of hearing AIDS and assistive listening devices in an older Australian population. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010; Nov-Dec. 21(10):642–53.

13. McCormack A, Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them. Int J Audiol. 2013; May. 52(5):360–8.

14. Oh SH, Lee J. General framework of hearing aid fitting management. J Audiol Otol. 2016; Apr. 20(1):1–7.

15. Sardari S, Jafari Z, Haghani H, Talebi H. Hearing aid validation based on 40 Hz auditory steady-state response thresholds. Hear Res. 2015; Dec. 330(Pt A):134–41.

16. Wu YH, Bentler RA. Clinical measures of hearing aid directivity: assumption, accuracy, and reliability. Ear Hear. 2012; Jan-Feb. 33(1):44–56.

17. Gil D, Iorio MC. Formal auditory training in adult hearing aid users. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010; Feb. 65(2):165–74.

18. Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear. 1982; May-Jun. 3(3):128–34.

19. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002; Jan. 41(1):30–5.

20. Brannstrom KJ, Lantz J, Nielsen LH, Olsen SO. Prediction of IOI-HA scores using speech reception thresholds and speech discrimination scores in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014; Feb. 25(2):154–63.

21. Lee DH, Noh H. Prediction of the use of conventional hearing aids in Korean adults with unilateral hearing impairment. Int J Audiol. 2015; 54(9):613–9.

22. Chu H, Cho YS, Park SN, Byun JY, Shin JE, Han GC, et al. Standardization for a Korean adaptation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids: study of validity and reliability. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 55(1):20–5.

23. Cox RM, Gilmore C, Alexander GC. Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 1991; Jul. 2(3):134–45.

24. Gatehouse S. Self-report outcome measures for adult hearing aid services: some uses, users, and options. Trends Amplif. 2001; Sep. 5(3):91–110.

25. Mendel LL. Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. Am J Audiol. 2007; Dec. 16(2):118–29.

26. Humes LE, Halling D, Coughlin M. Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res. 1996; Oct. 39(5):923–35.

27. Kim SY, Park JS, Kim MB. Clinical usefulness of speech mapping for fitting of hearing aids. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; Oct. 61(6):287–94.