Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?

Objective: Age-related hearing loss is an increasingly important public health problem affecting approximately 40% of 55–74 year olds. The primary clinical management intervention for people with hearing loss is hearing aids, however, the majority (80%) of adults aged 55–74 years who would benefit from a hearing aid, do not use them. Furthermore, many people given a hearing aid do not wear it. The aim was to collate the available evidence as to the potential reasons for non-use of hearing aids among people who have been fitted with at least one. Design: Data were gathered via the use of a scoping study. Study sample: A comprehensive search strategy identified 10 articles reporting reasons for non-use of hearing aids. Results: A number of reasons were given, including hearing aid value, fit and comfort and maintenance of the hearing aid, attitude, device factors, financial reasons, psycho-social/situational factors, healthcare professionals attitudes, ear problems, and appearance. Conclusions: The most important issues were around hearing aid value, i.e. the hearing aid not providing enough benefit, and comfort related to wearing the hearing aid. Identifying factors that affect hearing aid usage are necessary for devising appropriate rehabilitation strategies to ensure greater use of hearing aids

Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators to Hearing Aid Uptake in Older Adults

A key element to success in the implementation of any screening for a health condition is that an effective treatment is available, accessible, and complied with[...

Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids

Speech recognition performance and self-reported benefit from linear analogue and advanced (digital) hearing aids were compared in 100 first-time hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid in a single-blind randomized crossover trial. Subjects used each aid for 5 weeks in turn, with aid order balanced across subjects. Three alternative models of digital hearing aid were assigned to subjects according to a balanced design. Aid type was disguised to keep subjects blind within practical limitations. Aided speech recognition performance in noise was measured at speech levels of 65 and 75 dB at a speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) of _2 dB for closed sets of single words. Self-rated benefit was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). Quality of life, hearing aid use and user preferences were also assessed. Speech recognition scores with the digital aids were significantly better at 75 dB than with the analogue aids. Self-reported benefit (APHAB, GHABP) and improvement in quality of life were generally not significantly different between analogue and digital aids, although aversiveness measured with the APHAB was significantly lower with digital aids, and satisfaction measured with the GHABP was greater. The digital aids were preferred significantly more often than the analogue aids, with 61 subjects choosing their digital aid, 26 choosing the analogue aid, and nine being equivocal. Overall, this study shows advantages for advanced digital over simple linear analogue aids interms of both objective and subjective outcomes, although average differences are not large

Consonant recognition loss in hearing impaired listeners

This paper presents a compact graphical method for comparing the performance of individual hearing impaired (HI) listeners with that of an average normal hearing (NH) listener on a consonant-by-consonant basis. This representation, named the consonant loss profile (CLP), characterizes the effect of a listener’s hearing loss on each consonant over a range of performance. The CLP shows that the consonant loss, which is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) difference at equal NH and HI scores, is consonant-dependent and varies with the score. This variation in the consonant loss reveals that hearing loss renders some consonants unintelligible, while it reduces noise-robustness of some other consonants. The conventional SNR-loss metric ΔSNR50, defined as the SNR difference at 50% recognition score, is insufficient to capture this variation. The ΔSNR50 value is on average 12 dB lower when measured with sentences using standard clinical procedures than when measured with nonsense syllables. A listener with symmetric hearing loss may not have identical CLPs for both ears. Some consonant confusions by HI listeners are influenced by the high-frequency hearing loss even at a presentation level as high as 85 dB sound pressure level