James R Dornhoffer1, Ted A Meyer2, Judy R Dubno2, Theodore R McRackan2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, dornhoff@musc.edu. 2. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. METHODS: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. RESULTS: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.
PURPOSE: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. METHODS: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. RESULTS: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.
Authors: R Cox; M Hyde; S Gatehouse; W Noble; H Dillon; R Bentler; D Stephens; S Arlinger; L Beck; D Wilkerson; S Kramer; P Kricos; J P Gagné; F Bess; L Hallberg Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Martina Brendel; Carolin Frohne-Buechner; Anke Lesinski-Schiedat; Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2013-11-25
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Michael Bauschard; Jonathan L Hatch; Emily Franko-Tobin; H Richard Droghini; Shaun A Nguyen; Judy R Dubno Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Chan Il Song; Hyong-Ho Cho; Byung Yoon Choi; Jae Young Choi; Jin Woong Choi; Yun-Hoon Choung; Jong Woo Chung; Won-Ho Chung; Sung Hwa Hong; Yehree Kim; Byung Don Lee; Il-Woo Lee; Jong Dae Lee; Jun Ho Lee; Kyu-Yup Lee; Il Joon Moon; In Seok Moon; Seung-Ha Oh; Hong Ju Park; Shi Nae Park; Ji Won Seo Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.372