Comparing Direct-to-Consumer Devices to Hearing Aids: Amplification Accuracy for Three Types of Hearing Loss

被引:0
|
作者
Sheffield, Sterling W. [1 ]
Jacobs, Molly [2 ]
Ellis Jr, Charles [1 ]
Gerasimchik, Amber [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Speech Language & Hearing Sci, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Dept Hlth Serv Res Management & Policy, Gainesville, FL USA
关键词
OLDER-ADULTS; IMPAIRMENT; ADJUSTMENT; MODEL; CARE;
D O I
10.1044/2023_AJA-22-00170
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Purpose: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized regulations for overthe-counter hearing aids (OTC-HAs) on August 17, 2022. Little is known about the comparative performance of OTC-HAs and prescription HAs. This study compared amplification accuracy of prescription HAs and direct-to-consumer devices (DTCDs, including personal sound amplification products [PSAPs] and Method: Eleven devices were programmed to meet prescriptive targets in an acoustic manikin for three degrees of hearing loss. Devices consisted of highand low-end HAs, PSAPS, and OTC-HAs. Each was tested, and deviations from target measured with an HA analyzer at every combination of 10 frequencies and low-, average-, and high-level inputs. Accuracy was compared using a multilevel Poisson model with device-specific intercepts controlling for input level, frequency, and device type. Results: For mild-moderate hearing loss, deviations from targets were not statistically different between high- and low-end HAs, but PSAPs (5.50 dB, SE = 0.92 dB) and OTC-HAs (8.83 dB, SE = 1.10 dB) had larger differentials. For flat moderate hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, average differentials were larger for all device types at all input levels and frequencies (Low HA: 3.82 dB, SE = 1.10 dB; PSAP: 9.24 dB, SE = 1.22 dB; OTC-HA: 8.61 dB, SE = 1.19 dB). For mild sloping to severe hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, OTC-HAs (9.72 dB, SE = 1.20 dB) and PSAPs (7.34 dB, SE = 1.07 dB) had larger differentials and significant variability at the highest and lowest frequencies. Half (three) of the PSAPs and OTC-HAs met most targets within +/- 5 dB. Conclusions: DTCDs were unable to meet prescriptive targets for severe types of hearing loss but could meet them for mild hearing loss. This study provides an examination of current hearing devices. More research is needed to determine whether meeting prescriptive targets provides any benefit in the outcomes and performance with DTCD devices.
引用
收藏
页码:139 / 150
页数:12
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [21] Does Unilateral Hearing Loss Impair Working Memory? An Italian Clinical Study Comparing Patients With and Without Hearing Aids
    della Volpe, Antonio
    Ippolito, Valentina
    Roccamatisi, Dalila
    Garofalo, Sabina
    De Lucia, Antonietta
    Gambacorta, Valeria
    Longari, Fabrizio
    Ricci, Giampietro
    Di Stadio, Arianna
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2020, 14
  • [22] A Scoping Review of Studies Comparing Outcomes for Children With Severe Hearing Loss Using Hearing Aids to Children With Cochlear Implants
    Killan, Catherine F.
    Hoare, Derek J.
    Katiri, Roulla
    Pierzycki, Robert H.
    Adams, Bethany
    Hartley, Douglas E. H.
    Ropar, Danielle
    Kitterick, Padraig T.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2022, 43 (02): : 290 - 304
  • [23] Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis
    Chen, Chih-Hao
    Huang, Chii-Yuan
    Cheng, Hsiu-Lien
    Lin, Heng-Yu Haley
    Chu, Yuan-Chia
    Chang, Chun-Yu
    Lai, Ying-Hui
    Wang, Mao-Che
    Cheng, Yen-Fu
    ECLINICALMEDICINE, 2022, 46
  • [24] Comparative Effectiveness of Personal Sound Amplification Products Versus Hearing Aids for Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial
    Kim, Min Su
    Kim, Kwan Ho
    Choe, Goun
    Park, Yong-Ho
    JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 39 (23)
  • [25] Are open-fit hearing aids a possible alternative to bone-anchored hearing devices in patients with mild to severe hearing loss? A preliminary trial
    Ostevik, Amberley V.
    Caissie, Rachel
    Verge, Janine
    Gulliver, Mark
    Hodgetts, William E.
    AUDIOLOGY RESEARCH, 2013, 3 (01) : 10 - 15
  • [26] Digital processing technology for bone-anchored hearing aids: randomised comparison of two devices in hearing aid users with mixed or conductive hearing loss
    Hill-Feltham, P.
    Roberts, S. A.
    Gladdis, R.
    JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2014, 128 (02): : 119 - 127
  • [27] Analysis of speech perception with amplification devices in subjects with ear malformation and unilateral hearing loss
    de Matos, Izabella Lima
    Ferreira, Maria Carolina
    Capoani Garcia Mondelli, Maria Fernanda
    CODAS, 2020, 32 (04):
  • [28] A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss
    Maidment, David W.
    Barker, Alexander B.
    Xia, Jun
    Ferguson, Melanie A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2018, 57 (10) : 721 - 729
  • [29] Consumer choice for hearing aids and listening devices: newspaper advertisements for UK private sector provision
    Ross, Liz
    Cathcart, Craig
    Lyon, Phil
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSUMER STUDIES, 2011, 35 (01) : 95 - 103
  • [30] The impact of hearing aids and age-related hearing loss on auditory plasticity across three months - An electrical neuroimaging study
    Giroud, Nathalie
    Lemke, Ulrike
    Reich, Philip
    Matthes, Katarina L.
    Meyer, Martin
    HEARING RESEARCH, 2017, 353 : 162 - 175