Karina F M Tao1,2,3,4,5, Tais de C Moreira6, Dona M P Jayakody1,2, De Wet Swanepoel1,2,7, Christopher G Brennan-Jones3,5,8, Lize Coetzee1,2, Robert H Eikelboom1,2,7. 1. Ear Sciences Centre, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 2. Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia. 3. Ear Health Team, Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 4. CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil. 5. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 6. Department of Social Responsibility, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 7. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 8. Department of Audiology, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and quality of standard face-to-face and teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations and blended services for adult hearing aid users. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-six participants were randomly allocated to two equal groups, with equal numbers of new and experienced users. One standard and one teleaudiology follow-up consultation were delivered by an audiologist, the latter assisted by a facilitator. The order was reversed for the second group. Outcome measurement tools were applied to assess aspects of participants' communication, fitting (physical, sensorial), quality of life, and service. Cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Most participants presented with moderate, sloping, and symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The duration of teleaudiology (42.96 ± 2.73 min) was equivalent to face-to-face consultations (41.25 ± 2.61 min). All modes of service delivery significantly improved outcomes for communication, fitting, and quality of life (p > 0.05). Satisfaction for both consultation modes was high, although significantly greater with standard consultations. The mode and order of delivery of the consultations did not influence the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Teleaudiology hearing aid follow-up consultations can deliver significant improvements, and do not differ from standard consultations. Blended services also deliver significant improvements. Satisfaction can be negatively impacted by technical or human-related issues.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and quality of standard face-to-face and teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations and blended services for adult hearing aid users. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-six participants were randomly allocated to two equal groups, with equal numbers of new and experienced users. One standard and one teleaudiology follow-up consultation were delivered by an audiologist, the latter assisted by a facilitator. The order was reversed for the second group. Outcome measurement tools were applied to assess aspects of participants' communication, fitting (physical, sensorial), quality of life, and service. Cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Most participants presented with moderate, sloping, and symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The duration of teleaudiology (42.96 ± 2.73 min) was equivalent to face-to-face consultations (41.25 ± 2.61 min). All modes of service delivery significantly improved outcomes for communication, fitting, and quality of life (p > 0.05). Satisfaction for both consultation modes was high, although significantly greater with standard consultations. The mode and order of delivery of the consultations did not influence the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Teleaudiology hearing aid follow-up consultations can deliver significant improvements, and do not differ from standard consultations. Blended services also deliver significant improvements. Satisfaction can be negatively impacted by technical or human-related issues.
Entities:
Keywords:
Telehealth; audiology; health service delivery; hearing aids; intervention; rehabilitation
Authors: Aaqilah Bhamjee; Talita le Roux; De Wet Swanepoel; Marien Alet Graham; Kurt Schlemmer; Faheema Mahomed-Asmail Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.614