1. Speech perception, real-ear measurements and self-perceived hearing impairment after remote and face-to-face programming of hearing aids: A randomized single-blind agreement study
- Author
-
Gilles Cizeron, Jacques Samson, Grégory Marin, Maxime Balcon, Frédéric Venail, J C Ceccato, Jean-Luc Puel, Marie Christine Picot, Antoine Lorenzi, Sylvain Falinower, Jeremy Bricaud, Denis Blanc, Service d'ORL, Hôpital Gui de Chauliac (CHRU de Montpellier), Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [Montpellier] (CHRU Montpellier), Epidemiology and Clinical Research Department, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France, Département d'ORL, chirurgie cervico-maxillo-faciale et d'audiophonologie [Hôpital Edouard Herriot - HCL], Hôpital Edouard Herriot [CHU - HCL], Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL)-Hospices Civils de Lyon (HCL), AUDITION CONSEIL, Institut des Neurosciences de Montpellier - Déficits sensoriels et moteurs (INM), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Montpellier (UM), CHU Montpellier, Neurobiologie de l'audition-plasticité synaptique, and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
- Subjects
Adult ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Speech perception ,020205 medical informatics ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Health Informatics ,02 engineering and technology ,Audiology ,Remote programming ,03 medical and health sciences ,Face-to-face ,0302 clinical medicine ,Hearing Aids ,teleaudiology ,Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) ,otorhinolaryngologic diseases ,0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering ,medicine ,Self perceived ,Humans ,Single-Blind Method ,030223 otorhinolaryngology ,Hearing Loss ,media_common ,Cross-Over Studies ,medicine.disease ,Agreement ,agreement study ,Speech Perception ,Single blind ,Psychology ,[SDV.MHEP]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology - Abstract
Introduction Current literature does not provide strong evidence that remote programming of hearing aids is effective, despite its increasing use by audiologists. We tested speech perception outcomes, real-ear insertion gain, and changes in self-perceived hearing impairment after face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids in a randomized multicentre, single-blind crossover study. Methods Adult experienced hearing aid users were enrolled during routine follow-up visits to audiology clinics. Hearing aids were programmed both face to face and remotely, then participants randomly received either the face-to-face or remote settings in a blinded manner and were evaluated 5 weeks later. Participants then received the other settings and were evaluated 5 weeks later. Results Data from 52 out of 60 participants were analysed. We found excellent concordance in performance of hearing aids programmed face to face and remotely for speech understanding in quiet (phonetically balanced kindergarten test – intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.87–0.95)), and good concordance in performance for speech understanding in noise (phonetically balanced kindergarten +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio – intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.55–0.82)). Face-to-face and remote programming took 10 minutes (±2.9) and 10 minutes (±2.8), respectively. Real-ear insertion gains were highly correlated for input sound at 50, 65 and 80 dB sound pressure levels. The programming type did not affect the abbreviated profile of hearing aid questionnaire scores. Conclusions In experienced hearing aid users, face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids give similar results in terms of speech perception, with no increase in the time spent on patients’ care and no difference in self-reported hearing benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02589561
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF