Alice Liu1, Bella Wu1, Desmond A Nunez1. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to conduct a meta-analysis examining the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) on hearing aid (HA) use compared with standard care. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane ENT, Central, Medline, Web of Science, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1988 and 2018 that compared MI to standard care. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample consists of four RCTs, investigating a total of 176 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RevMan 5.3 and a random effect model were used for analysis. RESULTS: The standardized mean difference in data-logged hours of HA use was not statistically significant (0.34 [95% confidence interval or CI: -0.10, 0.78; p = 0.13]). The mean difference for user-reported outcomes on the International Outcome Inventory-Hearing Aids of 0.41 [CI: -1.00, 1.82; p = 0.57] was also not significant. CONCLUSION: There is no current evidence that MI significantly improves HA use or user-reported outcomes. However, there were limited studies included in this review and further research is indicated. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to conduct a meta-analysis examining the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) on hearing aid (HA) use compared with standard care. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane ENT, Central, Medline, Web of Science, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1988 and 2018 that compared MI to standard care. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample consists of four RCTs, investigating a total of 176 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RevMan 5.3 and a random effect model were used for analysis. RESULTS: The standardized mean difference in data-logged hours of HA use was not statistically significant (0.34 [95% confidence interval or CI: -0.10, 0.78; p = 0.13]). The mean difference for user-reported outcomes on the International Outcome Inventory-Hearing Aids of 0.41 [CI: -1.00, 1.82; p = 0.57] was also not significant. CONCLUSION: There is no current evidence that MI significantly improves HA use or user-reported outcomes. However, there were limited studies included in this review and further research is indicated. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
Authors: Kevin Zhao; Marke Hambley; Theodore Venema; Susan Marynewich; Brendan McNeely; Desmond A Nunez Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 8.961