{"title":"Disparities between objectively measured hearing loss and subjectively perceived aided hearing loss: A scoping review.","authors":"Anette Lykke Hindhede, Natascha Sofie Soendergaard, Eva Juul Toldam, Niels-Henrik Møller Hansen","doi":"10.1177/20503121241279230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This scoping review aims to summarize and synthesize research findings on the disparities between audiometrically diagnosed and aided hearing loss versus the individual's own experience of hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search strategy was employed across multiple databases to identify studies published between 1990 and October 2023 focusing on the experiences of hearing problems among individuals with aided hearing loss. The selected studies underwent screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria revolved around including papers featuring a population of adult (+18) individuals with audiometrically measured hearing loss who had undergone technological rehabilitation. Data charting was employed to provide an overview of the studies and was additionally utilized to identify key themes. Narrative analysis was used to identify subthemes within the data set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis identified five themes: \"disability experience and discrepancy between measured and self-perceived hearing loss\"; \"listening effort\"; \"mental burden/psychological consequences\"; \"factors that alleviate the consequences of HL\"; and \"sociodemographic factors.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The scoping review shows that, despite the proliferation of technological options, there is a pressing need for a more concentrated effort to identify and scrutinize the supplementary facets of hearing loss that remain inadequately addressed by current hearing technology. This includes subjective experiences associated with hearing loss that may not be effectively treated solely with hearing aids.</p>","PeriodicalId":21398,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11388300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241279230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This scoping review aims to summarize and synthesize research findings on the disparities between audiometrically diagnosed and aided hearing loss versus the individual's own experience of hearing loss.
Methods: A systematic search strategy was employed across multiple databases to identify studies published between 1990 and October 2023 focusing on the experiences of hearing problems among individuals with aided hearing loss. The selected studies underwent screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria revolved around including papers featuring a population of adult (+18) individuals with audiometrically measured hearing loss who had undergone technological rehabilitation. Data charting was employed to provide an overview of the studies and was additionally utilized to identify key themes. Narrative analysis was used to identify subthemes within the data set.
Results: A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis identified five themes: "disability experience and discrepancy between measured and self-perceived hearing loss"; "listening effort"; "mental burden/psychological consequences"; "factors that alleviate the consequences of HL"; and "sociodemographic factors."
Conclusions: The scoping review shows that, despite the proliferation of technological options, there is a pressing need for a more concentrated effort to identify and scrutinize the supplementary facets of hearing loss that remain inadequately addressed by current hearing technology. This includes subjective experiences associated with hearing loss that may not be effectively treated solely with hearing aids.