Caitlin Frisby, Ilze Oosthuizen, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel
{"title":"亚临床听力损失患者寻求听力帮助、使用听力设备和听力健康状况:系统性综述。","authors":"Caitlin Frisby, Ilze Oosthuizen, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2024.2311660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to examine the current literature on help-seeking, hearing device uptake, and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Searches of three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus) yielded nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was determined using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The studies' level of evidence was determined according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All included studies involved adult participants. Three studies examined help-seeking. Self-reported difficulty, poor speech-in-noise performance, and emotional responses to the hearing difficulty were identified as factors influencing help-seeking. Six studies examined the use of hearing devices as an intervention, including hearing aids (<i>n</i> = 4), hearables (<i>n</i> = 1), and FM systems (<i>n</i> = 1). Using hearing devices improved self-perceived hearing difficulty, speech-in-noise understanding, and motivation to address hearing difficulties. No studies focused on hearing device uptake. The quality assessment indicated limited methodological rigour across the studies, with varying levels of evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence supports the use of hearing devices as an intervention for individuals with subclinical hearing loss. However, more research is essential, particularly focusing on help-seeking, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes using well-controlled study designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"925-935"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hearing help-seeking, hearing device uptake and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Frisby, Ilze Oosthuizen, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14992027.2024.2311660\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to examine the current literature on help-seeking, hearing device uptake, and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Searches of three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus) yielded nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was determined using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The studies' level of evidence was determined according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All included studies involved adult participants. Three studies examined help-seeking. Self-reported difficulty, poor speech-in-noise performance, and emotional responses to the hearing difficulty were identified as factors influencing help-seeking. Six studies examined the use of hearing devices as an intervention, including hearing aids (<i>n</i> = 4), hearables (<i>n</i> = 1), and FM systems (<i>n</i> = 1). Using hearing devices improved self-perceived hearing difficulty, speech-in-noise understanding, and motivation to address hearing difficulties. No studies focused on hearing device uptake. The quality assessment indicated limited methodological rigour across the studies, with varying levels of evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence supports the use of hearing devices as an intervention for individuals with subclinical hearing loss. However, more research is essential, particularly focusing on help-seeking, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes using well-controlled study designs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"925-935\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2311660\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2311660","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的本系统性综述旨在研究有关亚临床听力损失患者寻求帮助、使用听力设备和听力健康结果的现有文献:设计:系统综述:研究样本:对三个数据库(CINAHL、MEDLINE (PubMed) 和 Scopus)进行检索,结果有九项研究符合纳入标准。采用美国国立卫生研究院质量评估工具确定了纳入研究的质量。研究的证据等级根据循证医学中心(Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)的标准确定:所有纳入的研究均涉及成年参与者。三项研究调查了求助情况。自我报告的困难、较差的噪音语言表达能力以及对听力困难的情绪反应被认为是影响求助的因素。六项研究对使用听力设备进行了干预,包括助听器(4 项)、可听设备(1 项)和调频系统(1 项)。使用听力设备改善了自我感觉的听力困难、噪音语言理解能力以及解决听力困难的动机。没有研究关注听力设备的使用情况。质量评估显示,各项研究的方法严谨性有限,证据水平参差不齐:目前的证据支持使用听力设备对亚临床听力损失患者进行干预。然而,更多的研究是必不可少的,特别是要关注求助、诊断、治疗和长期结果,并采用良好的研究设计。
Hearing help-seeking, hearing device uptake and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss: a systematic review.
Objective: This systematic review aims to examine the current literature on help-seeking, hearing device uptake, and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss.
Design: Systematic review.
Study sample: Searches of three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus) yielded nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was determined using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The studies' level of evidence was determined according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
Results: All included studies involved adult participants. Three studies examined help-seeking. Self-reported difficulty, poor speech-in-noise performance, and emotional responses to the hearing difficulty were identified as factors influencing help-seeking. Six studies examined the use of hearing devices as an intervention, including hearing aids (n = 4), hearables (n = 1), and FM systems (n = 1). Using hearing devices improved self-perceived hearing difficulty, speech-in-noise understanding, and motivation to address hearing difficulties. No studies focused on hearing device uptake. The quality assessment indicated limited methodological rigour across the studies, with varying levels of evidence.
Conclusions: Current evidence supports the use of hearing devices as an intervention for individuals with subclinical hearing loss. However, more research is essential, particularly focusing on help-seeking, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes using well-controlled study designs.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Audiology is committed to furthering development of a scientifically robust evidence base for audiology. The journal is published by the British Society of Audiology, the International Society of Audiology and the Nordic Audiological Society.