Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Perez, Elvira; Edmonds, Barrie A. (2012)
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Journal: PLoS ONE
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Research Article, Biology, Neuroscience, Clinical Research Design, Medicine, Otology, Q, R, Science, Sensory Systems, Otorhinolaryngology, Non-Clinical Medicine

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: otorhinolaryngologic diseases
Objective: A systematic review was conducted to identify and quality assess how studies published since 1999 have\ud measured and reported the usage of hearing aids in older adults. The relationship between usage and other dimensions of hearing aid outcome, age and hearing loss are summarised.\ud \ud Data sources: Articles were identified through systematic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, The University of Nottingham\ud Online Catalogue, Web of Science and through reference checking. Study eligibility criteria: (1) participants aged fifty years or over with sensori-neural hearing loss, (2) provision of an air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(s) and (4) published between 1999 and 2011.\ud \ud Results: Of the initial 1933 papers obtained from the searches, a total of 64 were found eligible for review and were quality assessed on six dimensions: study design, choice of outcome instruments, level of reporting (usage, age, and audiometry) and cross validation of usage measures. Five papers were rated as being of high quality (scoring 10–12), 35 papers were rated as being of moderate quality (scoring 7–9), 22 as low quality (scoring 4–6) and two as very low quality (scoring 0–2). Fifteen different methods were identified for assessing the usage of hearing aids.\ud \ud Conclusions: Generally, the usage data reviewed was not well specified. There was a lack of consistency and robustness in\ud the way that usage of hearing aids was assessed and categorised. There is a need for more standardised level of reporting of hearing aid usage data to further understand the relationship between usage and hearing aid outcomes.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Davis AC, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulus I (2007) Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess 11: 3-5.
    • 2. Cacciatore F, Napoli C, Abete P, Marciano E, Triassi M, et al. (1999) Quality of life determinants and hearing function in an elderly population: OsservatorioGeriatricoCampano Study Group. Gerontology 45: 323-328.
    • 3. Lopez-Torres J, Boix C, Tellez J, Lopez MA, del Campo JM, et al. (2009) Functional status of elderly people with hearing loss. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 49: 88-92.
    • 4. Action for Hearing Loss (2011) Facts and figures on deafness and tinnitus. Taking Action on Hearing Loss in the 21st century, June 2011.
    • 5. Schneider J, Gopinath B, Karpa M, McMahon C, Rochtchina E, et al. (2010) Hearing loss impacts on the use of community and informal supports. Age Ageing 39: 458-464.
    • 6. Dalton D, Cruickshanks K, Klein B, Klein R, Wiley T, et al. (2003) The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 43: 661-668.
    • 7. Kramer S, Goverts S, Dreschler W, Boymans M, Festen J (2002) International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from The Netherlands. Int J Audiol 41: 36-41.
    • 8. Goggins S, Day J (2009) Pilot study: Efficacy of recalling adult hearing-aid users for reassessment after three years within a publicly-funded audiology service. Int J Audiol 48: 204-210.
    • 9. Uriarte M, Denzin L, Dunstan A, Sellars J, Hickson L (2005) Measuring hearing aid outcomes using the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian data. J Am Acad Audiol 16: 383-402.
    • 10. Roup C, Noe C (2009) Hearing aid outcomes for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 18: 45-52.
    • 11. Humes L, Garner C, Wilson D, Barlow N (2001) Hearing aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 443: 469-486.
    • 12. Bentler R, Kramer S (2000) Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear and Hearing 21: 37S-49S.
    • 13. Hutton CL (1980) Responses to a Hearing Problem Inventory. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 13: 133-154.
    • 14. Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R (1999) Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid user's questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol 10: 67-79.
    • 15. Gatehouse S (1999) Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 10: 80-103.
    • 16. Taubman L, Palmer C, Durrant J, Pratt S (1999) Accuracy of hearing aid use time as reported by experienced hearing aid wearers. Ear Hear 20: 299-305.
    • 17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
    • 18. NHS Centre for Research and Dissemination, Systematic Reviews (2009) CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York. University of York.
    • 19. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328(7454): 1490.
    • 20. Oxman A (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 328: 1490-1494.
    • 21. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10): e1-34.
    • 22. Jerram JC, Purdy SC (2001) Technology, expectations, and adjustment to hearing loss: predictors of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 12: 64-79.
    • 23. Lupsakko T, Kautiainen H, Sulkava R (2005) The non-use of hearing aids in people aged 75 years and over in the city of Kuopio in Finland. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 262: 165-169.
    • 24. Maki-Torkko E, Sorri M, Laukli E (2001) Objective assessment of hearing aid use. Scand Audiol 30: 81-82.
    • 25. Stephens D, Lewis P, Davis A, Gianopoulos I, Vetter N (2001) Hearing aid possession in the population: Lessons from a small country. Audiology 40: 104-111.
    • 26. Smeeth L, Fletcher A, Ng ESW, Stirling S, Nunes M, et al. (2002) Reduced hearing, ownership, and use of hearing aids in elderly people in the UK - the MRC Trial of the Assessment and Management of Older People in the Community: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 359: 1466-1470.
    • 27. Bratt G, Rosenfield M, Williams D (2007) NIDCD/VA hearing aid clinical trial and follow-up: Background. J Am Acad Audiol 18(4): 274-281.
    • 28. Bertoli S, Staehelin K, Zemp E, Schindler C, Bodmer D, et al. (2009) Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants. Int J Audiology 48: 183-195.
    • 29. Hartley D, Rochtchina E, Newall P, Golding M, Mitchell P (2010) Use of Hearing Aids and Assistive Listening Devices in an Older Australian Population. J Am Acad Audiol 21(10): 642-653.
    • 30. Williams V, Johnson C, Danhauer J (2009) Hearing Aid Outcomes: Effects of Gender and Experience on Patients' Use and Satisfaction. J Am Acad Audiol 20(7): 422-432.
    • 31. Gopinath B, Mitchell P, Schneider J, Hartley D, Teber E, et al. (2011) Incidence and Predictors of Hearing Aid Use and Ownership among Older Adults with Hearing Loss. Annals of Epidemiology 21(7): 497-506.
    • 32. Cox R, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Harvey D, et al. (2000) Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear 21(4 Suppl): 106S-115S.
    • 33. Cox R, Alexander G (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16: 176-186.
    • 34. Cox R, Alexander G (1999) Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 20: 306-320.
    • 35. Ventry I, Weinstein B (1982) The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear and Hearing 3(3): 128-34.
    • 36. Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C, Pusakulich K (1988) Use of Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9: 198-207.
    • 37. Levitt H, Resnick S (1978) Speech reception by the hearing impaired: Methods of testing and development of meterials. Scand Audiol Suppl 6: 107-129.
    • 38. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S (2004) Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116(4 Pt 1): 2395-2405.
    • 39. Gnewikow D, Ricketts T, Bratt G, Mutchler L (2009) Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev 46(5): 603-618.
    • 40. Ivory P, Hendricks B, Van Vliet D, Beyer C, Abrams H (2009) Short-term hearing aid benefit in a large group. Trends Amplif 13(4): 260-280.
    • 41. Brooks DN (1985) Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol 19(3): 211-217.
    • 42. Brannstrom KJ, Wennerstrom I (2010) Hearing aid fitting outcome: clinical application and psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). J Am Acad Audiol 21(8): 512-521.
    • 43. Gussekloo J, de Bont LE, von Faber M, Eekhof J, Laat J, et al. (2003) Auditory rehabilitation of older people from the general population-the Leiden 85-plus study. Br J Gen Pract 53: 536-540.
    • 44. Vuorialho A, Sorri M, Nuojua I, Mulhi A (2006) Changes in hearing aid use over the past 20 years. Eu Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryng 263: 355-360.
    • 45. Parving A, Sibelle P (2001) Clinical study of hearing instruments: A crosssectional longitudinal audit based on consumer experiences. Audiology 40: 43-53.
    • 46. Humes L, Alhstrom J, Bratt G, Peek B (2009) Studies of hearing-aid outcome measures in older adults: A comparison of technologies and an examination of individual differences. Sem Hear 30: 112-128.
    • 47. Humes L, Humes L, Wilson D (2004) A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and tow-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design. Am J Audiol 13: 39-53.
    • 48. Arlinger S, Billermark E (1999) One year follow-up of users of a digital hearing aid. Br J Audiol 33: 223-232.
    • 49. Keidser G, Hartley D, Carter L (2008) Long-term usage of modern signal processing by listeners with severe or profound hearing loss: a retrospective survey. Am J Audiol 17: 136-146.
    • 50. Hickson L, Timm M, Worrall L, Bishop K (1999) Hearing aid fitting: outcomes for older adults. Aust J Audiology 21(1): 11.
    • 51. Brooks DN (1996) The time course of adaptation to hearing aid use. Br J Audiol 30: 55-62.
    • 52. Vuorialho A, Karinen P, SorriM (2006) Effect of hearing aids on hearing disability and quality of life in the elderly. Int J Audiol 45(7): 400-405.
    • 53. Beck D, Harvey A (2009) Creating successful professional-patient relationships. Audiology Today 12.
    • 54. Walden B, Demorest M, Hepler E (1984) Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27: 49-56.
    • 55. Forster S, Tomlin A (1988) Hearing Aid Usage in Queensland. Paper presented at the Audiological Society of Australia Conference.
    • 56. Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C (1987) Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear 8: 119S-126S.
    • 57. Cox R, Rivera I (1992) Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3(4): 242-254.
    • 58. Boothroyd A, Noffsinger D Hearings status questionnaire (HASQ).
    • 59. Weinstein B (1986) Validity of a screening protocol to identifying elderly people with hearing problems. ASHA 28: 41-45.
    • 60. Yueh B, McDowell JA, Collins M, Souza P, Loovis C, et al. (2005) Development and validation of the effectiveness of corrected auditory rehabilitation scale. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(10): 851-856.
    • 61. Cox R, Alexander G, Xu J (2009) Development of the Device Oriented Subjective Outcome Scale (DOSO). Annual Meeting of the American Auditory Society. http://www.memphis.edu/ausp/harl/publications.htm#posters.
    • 62. Wechsler D (1981) The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
    • 63. Kochkin S (2000) MarkeTrak V: Consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J 53(1): 38-55.
    • 64. Kochkin S (2005) MarkeTrak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J 58(9.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article