Suppr超能文献

非处方自助式助听器与听力学家验配助听器的效果比较:一项随机临床试验。

Effectiveness of an Over-the-Counter Self-fitting Hearing Aid Compared With an Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Virtual Hearing Lab, Collaborative Initiative Between the University of Colorado and the University of Pretoria, Aurora, Colorado.

出版信息

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun 1;149(6):522-530. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2023.0376.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial.

INTERVENTIONS

A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks).

RESULTS

Sixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

摘要

重要性

听力损失是一种高发疾病,如果不加以治疗,会导致许多身体衰弱的后果。然而,在美国有听力损失的成年人中,只有不到 20%使用助听器。2022 年 10 月,非处方(OTC)助听器开始上市,以提高可及性和可负担性。然而,使用市场上现有设备的可用 OTC 助听器的临床效果研究有限。

目的

比较自我适配的 OTC 助听器与远程支持和听力学家适配的最佳实践使用的助听器的临床效果。

设计、地点和参与者:这是一项在 2022 年 4 月 14 日至 8 月 29 日之间进行的随机临床效果试验。招募了 68 名自我感知有轻度至中度听力损失的成年人,并将其随机分配到自我适配组或听力学家适配组。在双侧助听器适配后,参与者首先在没有任何支持的情况下完成了为期 2 周的家庭试验。只有在 2 周试验结束后,两组都可以获得微调的机会。自我适配组可以根据需要远程获得支持和调整,而听力学家适配组则由听力学家提供支持和调整。参与者在另外 4 周的家庭试验后再次进行评估。

干预措施

自我适配组的参与者将获得一款市售的自我适配 OTC 助听器,预计他们将使用市售的说明书和随附的智能手机应用程序来设置助听器。在听力学家适配组中,听力学家根据国家声学实验室非线性版本 2 算法,使用真耳验证和助听器使用说明,为每个参与者适配相同的助听器。

主要结果和测量指标

主要结果测量指标是自我报告的助听器受益,使用简化助听器受益量表(APHAB)进行测量。次要测量指标包括国际助听器效果清单(IOI-HA)和使用简化语音噪声测试和数字噪声测试测量的语音识别噪声。所有指标均在基线和助听器适配后的 2 个时间点(2 周和 6 周)进行测量。

结果

64 名参与者被纳入分析样本(33 名男性[51.6%];平均[SD]年龄,63.6[14.1]岁),每组有 32 名参与者随机分组。两组在年龄(效应大小 r = -0.2[95%CI,-0.3 至 0.2])或 4 频纯音平均(效应大小 r = 0.2[95%CI,-0.1 至 0.4])方面没有显著差异。在为期 2 周的家庭试验后,自我适配组在自我报告的 APHAB(Cohen d = -0.5[95%CI,-1.0 至 0])和 IOI-HA(效应大小 r = 0.3[95%CI,0.0 至 0.5])方面比听力学家适配组有初始优势,但在语音识别噪声方面没有优势。在 6 周试验结束时,两组在任何结果测量指标上均无明显差异。

结论和相关性

在这项随机临床效果试验中,具有远程支持功能的自我适配 OTC 助听器在 6 周后的适配效果与使用听力学家最佳实践适配的助听器相当。这些发现表明,自我适配的 OTC 助听器可能为轻度至中度听力损失提供有效的干预措施。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT05337748。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6e87/10102918/43d6c9eb4c19/jamaotolaryngolheadnecksurg-e230376-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验