自行配戴助听器与听力学家配戴助听器的长期效果对比。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Karina C De Sousa, Vinaya Manchaiah, David R Moore, Marien A Graham, De Wet Swanepoel
{"title":"自行配戴助听器与听力学家配戴助听器的长期效果对比。","authors":"Karina C De Sousa, Vinaya Manchaiah, David R Moore, Marien A Graham, De Wet Swanepoel","doi":"10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>With rising interest in over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids as an alternative to traditional audiologist-fit devices, understanding their long-term efficacy is crucial. However, given the novelty of the US Food and Drug Administration category of OTC hearing aids, minimal evidence currently supports their long-term efficacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the long-term self-reported outcomes at 8 months of self-fit OTC hearing aids to the same hearing aids fit by audiologists.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Building on a previous randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a number of the original participants that were not lost to follow-up. Participants were initially divided into those with self-fit OTC hearing aids and those with audiologist-fit devices. Approximately 8 months after fitting, participants completed self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. The original noninferiority trial was conducted at the University of Pretoria in South Africa from April 2022 to August 2022. The current analysis took place between July 7, 2023, to November 20, 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>In the original trial, participants in the self-fit device group received a pair of OTC hearing aids and independently fit them with remote support as needed. The audiologist-fit device group received the same hearing aids fit by a certified audiologist using best practices.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcomes were self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 64 participants in the trial, 44 participants were included in the extension study (21 [47.7%] in the audiologist-fit group; 23 [52.3%] in the self-fit group). The mean (SD) age of these participants was 63.0 (13.2) years, and 21 (47.7%) were male. At the long-term follow-up, self-fit and audiologist-fit groups showed no significant differences in the APHAB global score (mean difference, 0.02 [95% CI, -7.1 to 7.1]; Cohen d, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5]) or the IOI-HA total score (mean difference, 1.5 [95% CI, -1.4 to 4.4]; Cohen d, 0.3 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.8]). From 6 weeks to 8 months, no clinically meaningful group-time interaction was found between groups for the APHAB global score (Cohen d, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.3]), but a significant interaction for the IOI-HA total score was found (Cohen d, -0.6 [95% CI, -0.8 to -0.3]), with the self-fit group generally performing better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated that self-fit OTC hearing aids can offer comparable long-term benefits to audiologist-fit hearing aids for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":14632,"journal":{"name":"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery","volume":" ","pages":"765-771"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11240231/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Fit vs Audiologist-Fit Hearing Aids.\",\"authors\":\"Karina C De Sousa, Vinaya Manchaiah, David R Moore, Marien A Graham, De Wet Swanepoel\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>With rising interest in over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids as an alternative to traditional audiologist-fit devices, understanding their long-term efficacy is crucial. However, given the novelty of the US Food and Drug Administration category of OTC hearing aids, minimal evidence currently supports their long-term efficacy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the long-term self-reported outcomes at 8 months of self-fit OTC hearing aids to the same hearing aids fit by audiologists.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Building on a previous randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a number of the original participants that were not lost to follow-up. Participants were initially divided into those with self-fit OTC hearing aids and those with audiologist-fit devices. Approximately 8 months after fitting, participants completed self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. The original noninferiority trial was conducted at the University of Pretoria in South Africa from April 2022 to August 2022. The current analysis took place between July 7, 2023, to November 20, 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>In the original trial, participants in the self-fit device group received a pair of OTC hearing aids and independently fit them with remote support as needed. The audiologist-fit device group received the same hearing aids fit by a certified audiologist using best practices.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcomes were self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 64 participants in the trial, 44 participants were included in the extension study (21 [47.7%] in the audiologist-fit group; 23 [52.3%] in the self-fit group). The mean (SD) age of these participants was 63.0 (13.2) years, and 21 (47.7%) were male. At the long-term follow-up, self-fit and audiologist-fit groups showed no significant differences in the APHAB global score (mean difference, 0.02 [95% CI, -7.1 to 7.1]; Cohen d, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5]) or the IOI-HA total score (mean difference, 1.5 [95% CI, -1.4 to 4.4]; Cohen d, 0.3 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.8]). From 6 weeks to 8 months, no clinically meaningful group-time interaction was found between groups for the APHAB global score (Cohen d, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.3]), but a significant interaction for the IOI-HA total score was found (Cohen d, -0.6 [95% CI, -0.8 to -0.3]), with the self-fit group generally performing better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated that self-fit OTC hearing aids can offer comparable long-term benefits to audiologist-fit hearing aids for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"765-771\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11240231/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1825\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1825","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:随着人们对非处方(OTC)助听器作为传统听力学家验配设备的替代品越来越感兴趣,了解其长期疗效至关重要。然而,由于美国食品和药物管理局对非处方药助听器的新分类,目前支持其长期疗效的证据极少:比较自行配戴 OTC 助听器与听力学家配戴相同助听器 8 个月后的长期自我报告结果:在之前的随机临床试验的基础上,这项后续比较效果研究重新评估了一些未失去随访机会的原始参与者。参与者最初被分为自行验配 OTC 助听器和由听力学家验配助听器的两类。验配大约 8 个月后,参与者填写自我报告问卷。缺失数据通过多重估算处理。最初的非劣效性试验于 2022 年 4 月至 2022 年 8 月在南非比勒陀利亚大学进行。本次分析于 2023 年 7 月 7 日至 2023 年 11 月 20 日进行:在最初的试验中,自配设备组的参与者获得了一副 OTC 助听器,并根据需要在远程支持下独立配戴。听力学家验配组则由经认证的听力学家采用最佳方法验配相同的助听器:主要结果是自我报告的助听器收益,使用助听器收益简明档案(APHAB)和国际助听器收益量表(IOI-HA)进行测量:在参加试验的 64 名参与者中,有 44 人参加了扩展研究(听力学家验配组 21 人[47.7%];自我验配组 23 人[52.3%])。这些参与者的平均年龄(标准差)为 63.0 (13.2) 岁,其中 21 人(47.7%)为男性。在长期随访中,自我验配组和听力学家验配组在 APHAB 总分(平均差异,0.02 [95% CI,-7.1 至 7.1];Cohen d,0.01 [95% CI,-0.5 至 0.5])或 IOI-HA 总分(平均差异,1.5 [95% CI,-1.4 至 4.4];Cohen d,0.3 [95% CI,-0.2 至 0.8])方面无显著差异。从6周到8个月期间,在APHAB总分(Cohen d,0.1 [95% CI,-0.2至0.3])方面,各组间未发现有临床意义的组间时间交互作用,但在IOI-HA总分方面发现了显著的交互作用(Cohen d,-0.6 [95% CI,-0.8至-0.3]),自我装配组的表现普遍更好:这项比较效果研究表明,对于轻度至中度听力损失患者而言,自行配戴的 OTC 助听器可提供与听力学家配戴的助听器相当的长期益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-Term Outcomes of Self-Fit vs Audiologist-Fit Hearing Aids.

Importance: With rising interest in over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids as an alternative to traditional audiologist-fit devices, understanding their long-term efficacy is crucial. However, given the novelty of the US Food and Drug Administration category of OTC hearing aids, minimal evidence currently supports their long-term efficacy.

Objective: To compare the long-term self-reported outcomes at 8 months of self-fit OTC hearing aids to the same hearing aids fit by audiologists.

Design, setting, and participants: Building on a previous randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a number of the original participants that were not lost to follow-up. Participants were initially divided into those with self-fit OTC hearing aids and those with audiologist-fit devices. Approximately 8 months after fitting, participants completed self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. The original noninferiority trial was conducted at the University of Pretoria in South Africa from April 2022 to August 2022. The current analysis took place between July 7, 2023, to November 20, 2023.

Interventions: In the original trial, participants in the self-fit device group received a pair of OTC hearing aids and independently fit them with remote support as needed. The audiologist-fit device group received the same hearing aids fit by a certified audiologist using best practices.

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcomes were self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).

Results: Of 64 participants in the trial, 44 participants were included in the extension study (21 [47.7%] in the audiologist-fit group; 23 [52.3%] in the self-fit group). The mean (SD) age of these participants was 63.0 (13.2) years, and 21 (47.7%) were male. At the long-term follow-up, self-fit and audiologist-fit groups showed no significant differences in the APHAB global score (mean difference, 0.02 [95% CI, -7.1 to 7.1]; Cohen d, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5]) or the IOI-HA total score (mean difference, 1.5 [95% CI, -1.4 to 4.4]; Cohen d, 0.3 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.8]). From 6 weeks to 8 months, no clinically meaningful group-time interaction was found between groups for the APHAB global score (Cohen d, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.2 to 0.3]), but a significant interaction for the IOI-HA total score was found (Cohen d, -0.6 [95% CI, -0.8 to -0.3]), with the self-fit group generally performing better.

Conclusion: This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated that self-fit OTC hearing aids can offer comparable long-term benefits to audiologist-fit hearing aids for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.

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
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
230
期刊介绍: JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery is a globally recognized and peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated to providing up-to-date information on diseases affecting the head and neck. It originated in 1925 as Archives of Otolaryngology and currently serves as the official publication for the American Head and Neck Society. As part of the prestigious JAMA Network, a collection of reputable general medical and specialty publications, it ensures the highest standards of research and expertise. Physicians and scientists worldwide rely on JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery for invaluable insights in this specialized field.
×
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