Skip to content

Impact of Hearing Aid Service-delivery Model and Technology on Patient Outcomes

Impact of Hearing Aid Service-delivery Model and Technology on Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03579563
Enrollment
290
Registered
2018-07-06
Start date
2019-02-22
Completion date
2023-12-22
Last updated
2024-10-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Presbycusis

Keywords

Presbycusis, Hearing aid

Brief summary

Age-related hearing loss is a big problem in the United States because many people have it and it affects their quality of life. Hearing aids can help, but not many people use them. One reason is that getting hearing aids can be expensive and difficult. People usually have to visit doctors, like audiologists, many times to get their hearing tested and have the hearing aids fitted and adjusted. This process is called the AUD service model in this study. Hearing aids come with different technologies and features, like directional microphones and noise reduction algorithms. These features can make hearing aids work better but also make them more expensive, which can be another barrier for people who need them. Recently, over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids have become available. These hearing aids are cheaper and easier to get because people can buy them directly and fit them on their own without seeing a doctor. This is called the OTC service model in this study. Another service model that could be great is a hybrid service model, where professionals help fit the OTC hearing aids. This hybrid model can make hearing aids both affordable and high quality. Studies have shown that the OTC service model works as well as the AUD service model. Additionally, other research has found no big differences in how well high-end and low-end hearing aids work for patients. However, no one has studied the different service models and technology levels together in one study, and no one has looked at how well the hybrid service model (called the OTC+ service model in this study) works. The goal of this study is to find out how the different ways of fitting hearing aids (AUD, OTC+, and OTC) and the different technology levels (high-end and low-end) affect patient outcomes. The study will take place at two sites and will be a randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of six groups, which are combinations of the three service models and two technology levels. Measurements will be taken before the hearing aids are fitted and again six to seven weeks after fitting to see how well the hearing aids are working for the patients.

Detailed description

Age-related hearing loss presents a significant national challenge due to its high prevalence and significant quality-of-life consequences. Although hearing aids (HAs) are the primary choice for managing age-related hearing loss, their adoption rate remains low. One commonly reported reason for not adopting HAs is the financial and physical barriers associated with traditional hearing healthcare, which involves multiple visits to licensed professionals (such as audiologists) for diagnosis and a lengthy process of fitting and fine-tuning prescription HAs. This traditional service-delivery model is referred to as the AUD service model. Additionally, a variety of technologies and features have been implemented in HAs, including multi-channel wide dynamic range compression, directional microphones, noise reduction algorithms, and wireless functionality. These technologies have evolved from basic algorithms into more sophisticated and complex designs. The high-end technologies and features often make HAs more expensive, further exacerbating the accessibility and affordability issues of traditional hearing healthcare. In recent years, over-the-counter (OTC) HAs have emerged as an alternative to address some of the affordability and accessibility issues of the AUD service. This direct-to-consumer model enables users to self-determine hearing loss, self-fit OTC HAs, and self-manage the device without the need for professional support. This direct-to-consumer model is referred to as the OTC service model. Additionally, it has been advocated that a hybrid service model, where professionals fit OTC HAs (referred to as the OTC+ service model), could offer affordable and quality amplification interventions. Previous clinical trials have shown that the OTC service model yields outcomes comparable to the AUD service model. Furthermore, prior research has found no statistically significant or clinically important differences in patient outcomes between high-end and low-end HAs. However, no prior research has systematically examined the effectiveness of HA fitting service models and HA technology levels in the same study. Additionally, no prior research has investigated the patient outcomes of the OTC+ service model. The objective of the study is to determine the effect of HA fitting services (AUD, OTC+, and OTC) and technology levels (high-end and low-end) on patient outcomes. This is a two-site randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of six parallel arms, which are factorial combinations of three service models (AUD, OTC+, and OTC) and two HA technology levels (high-end and low-end). Baseline measures will be administered before HA fitting and patient outcomes will be assessed six to seven weeks post-HA fitting.

Interventions

OTHERAUD fitting

Prescription hearing aids will be fitted by audiologists using established procedures.

OTHEROTC+ fitting

Audiology professionals provide brief services to fit preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids.

OTHEROTC fitting

In this group, preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids, will be provided to subjects. Subjects will take the full initiative and responsibility for learning and using hearing aids.

DEVICEHigh-end HA

High-end hearing aids will be used.

DEVICELow-end HA

Low-end hearing aids will be used.

Sponsors

Vanderbilt University Medical Center
CollaboratorOTHER
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
CollaboratorNIH
Yu-Hsiang Wu
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
55 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* adult-onset, bilateral, mild-to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss * Puretone average across 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz between 25 and 55 dB HL * Thresholds from 500-4000 Hz no poorer than 65 dB HL, with up to 2 thresholds outside this criterion by \< 10 dB still being eligible. * no previous hearing aid experience

Exclusion criteria

* Non-native speaker of English

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Hearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)7-weeks post-interventionThe GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to collect in-situ reports. Scores from the items that evaluate patient's HA use are averaged across the four situations to form the EMA-GHABP-Use score. The score ranges from 1 (not use HA at all) to 5 (use HA all the time).
Hearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)7-weeks post-interventionThe GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to collect in-situ reports. Scores from the items that evaluate a patient's hearing disability, hearing handicap, HA benefit, and HA satisfaction are averaged across the four situations to form the EMA-GHABP-Global score. The score ranges from 1 (poorer outcome) to 5 (better outcome).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)pre-intervention and 7 weeks post-interventionThe HHIE and HHIA are questionnaires designed to measure subject's perceived hearing handicap. For subjects order and younger 65 years old, the HHIE and HHIA will be used, respectively. The score ranges from 0 (no handicap) to 100 (more handicap) (i.e., lower scores mean less handicap). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 7 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -100 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids) to +100 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids).
Hearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)6-week post-interventionThe GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using retrospective questionnaires. Scores from the items that evaluate patient's HA use are averaged across the four situations to form the Retro-GHABP-Use score. The score ranges from 1 (not use HA at all) to 5 (use HA all the time).
Change of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)pre-intervention and 7 weeks post-interventionThe PHAP is a questionnaire designed to measures the performance of hearing aids in speech communication. The score ranges from 1 (good performance) to 99 (poor performance) (i.e., lower scores mean better performance). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 7 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -98 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids) to +98 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids).
Hearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)7-week post-interventionThe SADL is a questionnaire designed to measures subject's perceived hearing aid satisfaction. The score ranges from 1 (low satisfaction) to 7 (high satisfaction).
Hearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)6 weeks post-interventionThe GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using retrospective questionnaires. Scores from the items that evaluate a patient's hearing disability, hearing handicap, HA benefit, and HA satisfaction are averaged across the four situations to form the Retro-GHABP-Global score. The score ranges from 1 (poorer outcome) to 5 (better outcome).
Change of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)pre-intervention and 6 weeks post-interventionThe CST is a speech recognition test designed to simulate daily speech communication. The score ranges from 0 (understand no speech) to 100 (understand all speech). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 6 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -100 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids) to +100 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids).

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited between February 2019 and December 2023. Participants were recruited from the an established participant registry and through mass emails to the communities around Iowa City, IA and Vanderbilt, TN.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
AUD/High-end
In this group, the audiologist-based fitting will be used to provide high-end hearing aids. AUD fitting: Prescription hearing aids will be fitted by audiologists using established procedures. High-end HA: High-end hearing aids will be used.
43
OTC+/High-end
In this group, audiologists will provide brief services to fit high-end OTC hearing aids OTC+ fitting: Audiology professionals provide brief services to fit preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids. High-end HA: High-end hearing aids will be used.
41
OTC/High-end
In this group, high-end OTC hearing aids will be provided to subjects. OTC fitting: In this group, preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids, will be provided to subjects. Subjects will take the full initiative and responsibility for learning and using hearing aids. High-end HA: High-end hearing aids will be used.
42
AUD/Low-end
In this group, the audiologist-based fitting will be used to provide low-end hearing aids. AUD fitting: Prescription hearing aids will be fitted by audiologists using established procedures. Low-end HA: Low-end hearing aids will be used.
40
OTC+/Low-end
In this group, audiologists will provide brief services to fit low-end OTC hearing aids. OTC+ fitting: Audiology professionals provide brief services to fit preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids. Low-end HA: Low-end hearing aids will be used.
39
OTC/Low-end
In this group, low-end OTC hearing aids will be provided to subjects. OTC fitting: In this group, preset-based OTC hearing aids, which are simulated using prescription hearing aids, will be provided to subjects. Subjects will take the full initiative and responsibility for learning and using hearing aids. Low-end HA: Low-end hearing aids will be used.
40
Total245

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003FG004FG005
Overall StudyCOVID shutdown234312
Overall StudyHealth concern (unrelated to the intervention of the study)200122
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy114123
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up000010
Overall StudyProtocol administration error101015
Overall StudyTime/distance concern001001

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAUD/High-endOTC+/High-endOTC/High-endAUD/Low-endOTC+/Low-endOTC/Low-endTotal
Age, Continuous66.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.1
66.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.4
67.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.4
67.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
68.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3
69.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.8
67.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.1
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants4 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
41 Participants39 Participants41 Participants40 Participants39 Participants40 Participants240 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Hearing loss (pure-tone average)31.2 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9
31.8 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8
30.1 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.8
31.5 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.1
30.6 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3
31 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.2
31 dB HL
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants2 Participants1 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants2 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
41 Participants38 Participants42 Participants39 Participants37 Participants37 Participants234 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
22 Participants20 Participants22 Participants19 Participants17 Participants21 Participants121 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
21 Participants21 Participants20 Participants21 Participants22 Participants19 Participants124 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
EG004
affected / at risk
EG005
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 430 / 410 / 420 / 400 / 390 / 40
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 430 / 410 / 420 / 400 / 390 / 40
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 430 / 410 / 420 / 400 / 390 / 40

Outcome results

Primary

Hearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)

The GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to collect in-situ reports. Scores from the items that evaluate a patient's hearing disability, hearing handicap, HA benefit, and HA satisfaction are averaged across the four situations to form the EMA-GHABP-Global score. The score ranges from 1 (poorer outcome) to 5 (better outcome).

Time frame: 7-weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
OTC+/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
OTC/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
AUD/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
OTC+/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
OTC/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Global)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Primary

Hearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)

The GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to collect in-situ reports. Scores from the items that evaluate patient's HA use are averaged across the four situations to form the EMA-GHABP-Use score. The score ranges from 1 (not use HA at all) to 5 (use HA all the time).

Time frame: 7-weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)4.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
OTC+/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)4.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
OTC/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.8
AUD/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)4.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
OTC+/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
OTC/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using In-situ Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (EMA-GHABP-Use)4.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Secondary

Change of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)

The PHAP is a questionnaire designed to measures the performance of hearing aids in speech communication. The score ranges from 1 (good performance) to 99 (poor performance) (i.e., lower scores mean better performance). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 7 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -98 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids) to +98 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids).

Time frame: pre-intervention and 7 weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-17.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.1
OTC+/High-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-14.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.2
OTC/High-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-15.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.7
AUD/Low-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-16.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.3
OTC+/Low-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-13.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.2
OTC/Low-endChange of Hearing Aid Performance Measured Using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP)-13.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.3
Secondary

Change of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)

The HHIE and HHIA are questionnaires designed to measure subject's perceived hearing handicap. For subjects order and younger 65 years old, the HHIE and HHIA will be used, respectively. The score ranges from 0 (no handicap) to 100 (more handicap) (i.e., lower scores mean less handicap). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 7 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -100 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids) to +100 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids).

Time frame: pre-intervention and 7 weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-23.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.6
OTC+/High-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-13.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.6
OTC/High-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-15 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.8
AUD/Low-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-17.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.9
OTC+/Low-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.6
OTC/Low-endChange of Hearing Handicap Measured by Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) or Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)-13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.4
Secondary

Change of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)

The CST is a speech recognition test designed to simulate daily speech communication. The score ranges from 0 (understand no speech) to 100 (understand all speech). Participants will complete this questionnaire pre-intervention and at 6 weeks post-intervention. The change in scores between pre- and post-intervention will be used for analysis, with score changes ranging from -100 (indicating a detrimental effect of hearing aids) to +100 (indicating a benefit from hearing aids).

Time frame: pre-intervention and 6 weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)10.5 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 15.7
OTC+/High-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)5 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 12.4
OTC/High-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)6.7 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 11.6
AUD/Low-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)4.6 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 10.7
OTC+/Low-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)2.2 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 12.9
OTC/Low-endChange of Speech Recognition Performance as Measured by the Connected Speech Test (CST)6.4 percentage of correct responseStandard Deviation 19.7
Secondary

Hearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)

The GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using retrospective questionnaires. Scores from the items that evaluate a patient's hearing disability, hearing handicap, HA benefit, and HA satisfaction are averaged across the four situations to form the Retro-GHABP-Global score. The score ranges from 1 (poorer outcome) to 5 (better outcome).

Time frame: 6 weeks post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
OTC+/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
OTC/High-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
AUD/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
OTC+/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
OTC/Low-endHearing Aid Benefit Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Global)3.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Secondary

Hearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)

The SADL is a questionnaire designed to measures subject's perceived hearing aid satisfaction. The score ranges from 1 (low satisfaction) to 7 (high satisfaction).

Time frame: 7-week post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)5.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
OTC+/High-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)4.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
OTC/High-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)4.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
AUD/Low-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)5.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
OTC+/Low-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)4.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
OTC/Low-endHearing Aid Satisfaction as Measured by the Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life (SADL)4.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Secondary

Hearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)

The GHABP is a questionnaire that measures hearing aid (HA) users' listening experience in four situations: TV listening, small conversation in quiet, conversation in noise, and group conversation. The GHABP will be administered using retrospective questionnaires. Scores from the items that evaluate patient's HA use are averaged across the four situations to form the Retro-GHABP-Use score. The score ranges from 1 (not use HA at all) to 5 (use HA all the time).

Time frame: 6-week post-intervention

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AUD/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)4.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
OTC+/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)3.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
OTC/High-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)3.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
AUD/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)4.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
OTC+/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
OTC/Low-endHearing Aid Use Measured Using Retrospective Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (Retro-GHABP-Use)4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026