The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine efficacy of hearing aids in older adults using audiology best practices, to evaluate the efficacy of an alternative over-the-counter (OTC) intervention, and to examine the influence of purchase price on outcomes for both service-delivery models. Design The design of this study was a single-site, prospective, double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial with three parallel branches: (a) audiology best practices (AB), (b) consumer decides OTC model (CD), and (c) placebo devices (P). Outcome measures were obtained after a typical 6-week trial period with follow-up 4-week AB-based trial for those initially assigned to CD and P groups. Setting Older adults from the general community were recruited via newspaper and community flyers to participate at a university research clinic. Participants Participants were adults, ages 55–79 years, with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. There were 188 eligible participants: 163 enrolled as a volunteer sample, and 154 completed the intervention. Intervention(s) All participants received the same high-end digital mini-behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted bilaterally. AB and P groups received best-practice services from audiologists; differing mainly in use of appropriate (AB) or placebo (P) hearing aid settings. CD participants self-selected their own pre-programmed hearing aids via an OTC model. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures Primary outcome measure was a 66-item self-report, Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (Cox & Gilmore, 1990). Secondary outcome measure was the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) benefit. Additional measures of hearing-aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage were also obtained. Results Per-protocol analyses were performed. AB service-delivery model was found to be efficacious for most of the outcome measures, with moderate or large effect sizes (Cohen's d). CD service-delivery model was efficacious, with similar effect sizes. However, CD group had a significantly (p < .05) lower satisfaction and percentage (CD: 55%; AB: 81%; P: 36%) likely to purchase hearing aids after the trial. Conclusions Hearing aids are efficacious in older adults for both AB and CD service-delivery models. CD model of OTC service delivery yielded only slightly poorer outcomes than the AB model. Efficacious OTC models may increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for millions of older adults. Purchase price had no effect on outcomes, but a high percentage of those who rejected hearing aids paid the typical price (85%). Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01788432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01788423 Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5382499

[1]  D. R. Cunningham,et al.  Effects of providing and withholding postfitting fine-tuning adjustments on outcome measures in novice hearing aid users: a pilot study. , 2001, American journal of audiology.

[2]  R M Cox,et al.  Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Modeling and Predicting Hearing Aid Outcome , 2003, Trends in amplification.

[5]  Sergei Kochkin MarkeTrak VIII Mini-BTEs tap new market, users more satisfied , 2011 .

[6]  C. Schoenborn,et al.  Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey. , 1988, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[7]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a New Tool , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Gregory A Flamme,et al.  Prevalence of hearing impairment by gender and audiometric configuration: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004) and the Keokuk County Rural Health Study (1994-1998). , 2008, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  Barrie A. Edmonds,et al.  A Systematic Review of Studies Measuring and Reporting Hearing Aid Usage in Older Adults since 1999: A Descriptive Summary of Measurement Tools , 2012, PloS one.

[10]  Catharyn T. Liverman,et al.  Hearing Health Care for Adults: Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability , 2016 .

[11]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. , 2000, JAMA.

[12]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of a pinna compensation algorithm for sound localization and speech perception in noise. , 2013 .

[13]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[14]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures , 2010 .

[15]  Sergei Kochkin,et al.  MarkeTrak V: Consumer satisfaction revisited , 2000 .

[16]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Development of materials for speech audiometry. , 1952, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[17]  A. Neuman,et al.  Effects of in-the-ear microphone directionality on sound direction identification. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Jingjing Xu,et al.  Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients’ Perspective , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[19]  P. F. Adams,et al.  Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1991. , 1992, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[20]  Dana L. Wilson,et al.  Hearing-aid outcome measured following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[21]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  MarkeTrak VIII: The Impact of the Hearing Healthcare Professional on Hearing Aid User Success , 2010 .

[22]  Earl E. Johnson,et al.  Modern Prescription Theory and Application: Realistic Expectations for Speech Recognition With Hearing Aids , 2013, Trends in amplification.

[23]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Studies of Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in Older Adults: A Comparison of Technologies and an Examination of Individual Differences , 2009 .

[24]  Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[25]  G. Keidser,et al.  The NAL-NL2 Prescription Procedure , 2011, Audiology research.

[26]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[27]  Judy R Dubno,et al.  Guest editorial: accessible and affordable hearing health care for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Andrea Caposecco,et al.  Assembly and Insertion of a Self-Fitting Hearing Aid , 2011, Trends in amplification.

[29]  S. Kochkin MarkeTrak VIII: 25-Year Trends in the Hearing Health Market , 2009 .

[30]  Karen J. Cruickshanks,et al.  Epidemiology of Age-Related Hearing Impairment , 2010 .

[31]  R M Cox,et al.  The Contour Test of Loudness Perception , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[32]  L. Humes Issues in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Aids in the Elderly: What to Measure and When , 2001 .

[33]  R. Cox,et al.  Impact of Advanced Hearing Aid Technology on Speech Understanding for Older Listeners with Mild to Moderate, Adult-Onset, Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2014, Gerontology.

[34]  M. Folstein,et al.  Mini‐Mental State Examination , 2014 .

[35]  Karen A Doherty,et al.  The Practical Hearing Aids Skills Test-Revised. , 2012, American journal of audiology.