This study examined the influence of technology, demographic factors, and prefitting expectations, attitudes, and adjustment to hearing loss on hearing aid outcome. Clients obtaining new hearing aids completed questionnaires measuring personal adjustment to hearing loss, expectations of and attitudes toward hearing aids, and hearing aid benefit. Eighty-one percent of the 200 subjects completing the prefitting questionnaires returned questionnaires evaluating hearing aid outcome. Factors affecting hearing aid use, overall satisfaction, and benefit were investigated using regression analyses. Higher use time was associated with higher prefitting expectations and greater acceptance of hearing loss. Greater benefit in easy and difficult listening situations was predicted by higher prefitting expectations. Multiplememory hearing aids produced higher satisfaction. Benefit was greater for multiple-memory, multiple-channel, and wide dynamic range compression aids. Findings were consistent with previous studies showing positive outcomes for newer technologies but also showed that two subjective factors, prefitting hearing aid expectations and acceptance of hearing loss, significantly influenced hearing aid outcome. Abbreviations: APHAB = Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, BTE = behind the ear, CIC = completely in the canal, CPHI = Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired, HAPI = Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HARQ = Hearing Attitudes in Rehabilitation Questionnaire, HHIE = Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HPI = Hearing Performance Inventory, ITC = in the canal, ITE = in the ear, MAPHAB = Modified Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, MELLI = multiple environmental listening utility, MPAS = Modified Personal Adjustment Scale, PHAB = Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, SADL = Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jerram et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: