Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=34 Health Services Research

Longitudinal Outcomes of Hearing Aids

Presbycusis

Enrolled (actual)
34
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Aug 2024
Primary outcome: Primary: Hearing Aid Benefit as Measured by the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) — 3.68; 3.55; 3.63 score on a scale

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Over-the-counter fitting (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 55+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Yu-Hsiang Wu
Primary completion
Sep 2022

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Hearing Aid Benefit as Measured by the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP)
3.68; 3.55; 3.63
SECONDARY
Hearing Aid Performance/Benefit as Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)
30.5; 30.4; 29.5
SECONDARY
Hearing Handicap as Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)
20.2; 13; 17.7
SECONDARY
Hearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Hearing Aid Satisfaction Survey (HASS)
3.6; 3.5; 3.5
SECONDARY
Willingness-to-pay
967.7; 1104.7
SECONDARY
Quality of Life as Measured by the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0)
7.5; 6.7; 7.5
SECONDARY
Hearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)
4.6; 4.4; 4.6
SECONDARY
Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)
64.9; 79.6; 76.8

Summary

Age-related hearing loss is a substantial national problem due to its high prevalence and significant psychosocial consequences. Although hearing aids (HAs) are the primary intervention for the management of age-related hearing loss, only 15-30% of those who could benefit from HAs actually seek them out. HA adoption rates are even worse for people with lower income and for racial and ethnic minorities. One of the most commonly reported reasons for people not seeking HA intervention is the high cost of HAs and the associated audiological fitting services. Because HAs fitted using the audiologist-based service-delivery model are unaffordable, more and more Americans (1.5 million in 2010) purchase amplification devices via over-the-counter (OTC) service-delivery models to compensate for their impaired hearing. Although OTC amplification devices are gaining popularity and are regarded as an important option for promoting accessible and affordable hearing healthcare, it is unclear if they are viable solutions for age-related hearing loss as OTC models exclude professional services. Further, although there is some evidence supporting the effectiveness of OTC HAs, all previous studies measured short-term outcomes (e.g., 6 weeks). It is unknown what the long-term outcomes of OTC HAs would look like. The outcomes could improve across time because users may eventually figure out how to use HAs. On the other hand, the outcomes of OTC HAs could become poorer across time because, unlike traditional HA fitting, users do not have professionals to support them. Therefore, the overall goal of this project is to examine the longitudinal changes in OTC HA outcomes over 3 months.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • adult-onset, bilateral, mild-to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss

Exclusion Criteria

  • Non-native speaker of English
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04030299). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search