与简单的验配过程相比,全面的助听器验配过程是否会产生安慰剂效应?

Yu-Hsiang Wu, Megan Dorfler, Elizabeth Stangl, Jacob Oleson
{"title":"与简单的验配过程相比,全面的助听器验配过程是否会产生安慰剂效应?","authors":"Yu-Hsiang Wu, Megan Dorfler, Elizabeth Stangl, Jacob Oleson","doi":"10.3389/fauot.2024.1411397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Placebo effects refer to the impact of a treatment on health outcomes that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself. The current study aimed to investigate whether a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process would induce placebo effects compared to a simple process, and whether personal attributes such as personality traits could predict susceptibility to these effects.Thirty adults with hearing loss completed the study. The study began with a fitting session in which the field trial hearing aid configuration (the actual fitting) was set, followed by two experimental conditions. Each condition involved a fake hearing aid fitting and a 3-week field trial. In the fake fitting, bilateral hearing aids were fitted using the Comprehensive protocol (CM) that included multiple assessments and probe-microphone verification or the Streamlined protocol (ST) that did not involve any assessments other than a hearing test. The same hearing aid amplification settings established in the actual fitting, rather than the settings from the fake fittings, were used in the field trials for both conditions. Patient outcomes were measured using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), which was administered as both retrospective self-reports and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys. Personality was assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Upon completion of the study, participants expressed their hearing aid preferences based on hearing aids' real-world performances (prefer CM, prefer ST, or no preference).For both retrospective self-reports and EMA, the IOI-HA scores of the CM and ST conditions did not significantly differ. Among the 30 participants, 22 expressed a preference for either CM (n = 14) or ST (n = 8). Younger participants and those with higher levels of agreeableness were more likely to have a hearing aid preference.At the group level, comprehensive hearing aid fitting process did not generate a placebo effect leading to better outcomes compared to a simple process. However, despite the absence of differences in hearing aid settings, most (73%) participants were affected by placebo effects, believing that one fitting process yielded better real-world outcomes than the other. Personal attributes including personality traits and age are associated with susceptibility to placebo effects.","PeriodicalId":404946,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","volume":"311 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Would a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process lead to placebo effects compared to a simple process?\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Hsiang Wu, Megan Dorfler, Elizabeth Stangl, Jacob Oleson\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fauot.2024.1411397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Placebo effects refer to the impact of a treatment on health outcomes that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself. The current study aimed to investigate whether a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process would induce placebo effects compared to a simple process, and whether personal attributes such as personality traits could predict susceptibility to these effects.Thirty adults with hearing loss completed the study. The study began with a fitting session in which the field trial hearing aid configuration (the actual fitting) was set, followed by two experimental conditions. Each condition involved a fake hearing aid fitting and a 3-week field trial. In the fake fitting, bilateral hearing aids were fitted using the Comprehensive protocol (CM) that included multiple assessments and probe-microphone verification or the Streamlined protocol (ST) that did not involve any assessments other than a hearing test. The same hearing aid amplification settings established in the actual fitting, rather than the settings from the fake fittings, were used in the field trials for both conditions. Patient outcomes were measured using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), which was administered as both retrospective self-reports and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys. Personality was assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Upon completion of the study, participants expressed their hearing aid preferences based on hearing aids' real-world performances (prefer CM, prefer ST, or no preference).For both retrospective self-reports and EMA, the IOI-HA scores of the CM and ST conditions did not significantly differ. Among the 30 participants, 22 expressed a preference for either CM (n = 14) or ST (n = 8). Younger participants and those with higher levels of agreeableness were more likely to have a hearing aid preference.At the group level, comprehensive hearing aid fitting process did not generate a placebo effect leading to better outcomes compared to a simple process. However, despite the absence of differences in hearing aid settings, most (73%) participants were affected by placebo effects, believing that one fitting process yielded better real-world outcomes than the other. Personal attributes including personality traits and age are associated with susceptibility to placebo effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"volume\":\"311 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2024.1411397\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2024.1411397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

安慰剂效应指的是治疗对健康结果的影响,而这种影响不能归因于治疗本身。本研究旨在探讨与简单的验配过程相比,全面的助听器验配过程是否会诱发安慰剂效应,以及人格特质等个人属性是否能预测对这些效应的易感性。研究首先进行了验配,设定了现场试用的助听器配置(实际验配),然后进行了两个实验条件。每个实验条件都包括一次假的助听器验配和为期 3 周的现场试用。在假验配过程中,双侧助听器的验配采用综合验配方案(CM),包括多项评估和探头麦克风验证;或采用简化验配方案(ST),除听力测试外不进行任何评估。两种情况的现场试验均使用实际验配时确定的助听器放大设置,而不是假验配的设置。使用国际助听器效果量表(IOI-HA)对患者的效果进行测量,该量表以回顾性自我报告和生态瞬间评估(EMA)调查两种方式进行。人格采用 NEO 五因素量表进行评估。研究结束后,参与者根据助听器在真实世界中的表现表达了他们对助听器的偏好(偏好CM、偏好ST或无偏好)。在回顾性自我报告和EMA中,CM和ST条件下的IOI-HA得分没有显著差异。在 30 名参与者中,有 22 人表示偏好 CM(14 人)或 ST(8 人)。在群体层面上,与简单的验配过程相比,全面的助听器验配过程并没有产生安慰剂效应,导致更好的结果。然而,尽管助听器的设置没有差异,大多数(73%)参与者还是受到了安慰剂效应的影响,认为一种验配过程比另一种验配过程产生了更好的实际效果。包括个性特征和年龄在内的个人属性与安慰剂效应的易感性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Would a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process lead to placebo effects compared to a simple process?
Placebo effects refer to the impact of a treatment on health outcomes that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself. The current study aimed to investigate whether a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process would induce placebo effects compared to a simple process, and whether personal attributes such as personality traits could predict susceptibility to these effects.Thirty adults with hearing loss completed the study. The study began with a fitting session in which the field trial hearing aid configuration (the actual fitting) was set, followed by two experimental conditions. Each condition involved a fake hearing aid fitting and a 3-week field trial. In the fake fitting, bilateral hearing aids were fitted using the Comprehensive protocol (CM) that included multiple assessments and probe-microphone verification or the Streamlined protocol (ST) that did not involve any assessments other than a hearing test. The same hearing aid amplification settings established in the actual fitting, rather than the settings from the fake fittings, were used in the field trials for both conditions. Patient outcomes were measured using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), which was administered as both retrospective self-reports and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys. Personality was assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Upon completion of the study, participants expressed their hearing aid preferences based on hearing aids' real-world performances (prefer CM, prefer ST, or no preference).For both retrospective self-reports and EMA, the IOI-HA scores of the CM and ST conditions did not significantly differ. Among the 30 participants, 22 expressed a preference for either CM (n = 14) or ST (n = 8). Younger participants and those with higher levels of agreeableness were more likely to have a hearing aid preference.At the group level, comprehensive hearing aid fitting process did not generate a placebo effect leading to better outcomes compared to a simple process. However, despite the absence of differences in hearing aid settings, most (73%) participants were affected by placebo effects, believing that one fitting process yielded better real-world outcomes than the other. Personal attributes including personality traits and age are associated with susceptibility to placebo effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信