自配非处方助听器的可用性和性能。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-03 DOI:10.3766/jaaa.240037
Megan Knoetze, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel
{"title":"自配非处方助听器的可用性和性能。","authors":"Megan Knoetze, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel","doi":"10.3766/jaaa.240037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids can potentially improve access to hearing-health care and enable individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss to self-manage their condition. This study compared the usability and performance of a range of self-fitting over-the-counter (OTC-SF) hearing aids. <b>Research Design:</b> This cross-sectional study evaluated six OTC-SF hearing aids. <b>Study Sample:</b> Forty-three adults with self-perceived mild-to-moderate hearing difficulties participated in this study. <b>Data Collection and Analysis:</b> Participants were randomly assigned to two of six OTC-SF hearing aids and used the manufacturer-provided instructions and smartphone applications. These hearing aids included HP Hearing PRO, Jabra Enhance Plus, Lexie B2 Powered by Bose, Lexie Lumen, Soundwave Sontro, and Sony CRE-C10. Usability was assessed based on the fitting time, hearing aid skills and knowledge (HASK), self-reported ease of the SF process, and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) results. Performance was evaluated using the judgment of sound quality (JSQ) test and speech-in-noise benefit using the digits-in-noise and quick speech-in-noise tests. <b>Results:</b> Fitting time ranged from 14.4 to 27.1 min, with Lexie Lumen requiring the longest time (27.1 min; standard deviation [SD], 5.9 min) and HP Hearing PRO requiring the shortest time (14.4 min; SD = 1.9 min). The HASK scores varied, with Soundwave Sontro achieving the highest score (8.9/10) and HP Hearing PRO achieving the lowest score (6.8/10). Self-reported ease of SF and PSSUQ scores did not differ significantly between the OTC-SF hearing aids. Overall sound quality and clarity ratings significantly differed, with Lexie B2 receiving the highest rating (8.1/10 and 7.5/10) and HP Hearing PRO receiving the lowest rating (6.3/10 and 5.1/10). Speech-in-noise benefit did not differ significantly between devices. A thematic analysis identified seven themes of the participants' SF experiences and six themes of the researcher's field notes. Participants generally considered OTC-SF hearing aids user-friendly, although issues with Bluetooth connectivity, handling and insertion, and sound quality were noted by the researcher as common challenges. <b>Conclusions:</b> Usability and performance of OTC-SF hearing aids were similar across devices in terms of usability and speech-in-noise benefits. However, the devices exhibited variations in fitting time, HASK, and sound quality, including the overall impression and clarity. These findings can support the decisions of consumers and recommendations of health-care professionals. Further research of the long-term usability and selection processes of OTC-SF hearing aids is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":50021,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"23-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usability and Performance of Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Knoetze, Vinaya Manchaiah, De Wet Swanepoel\",\"doi\":\"10.3766/jaaa.240037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids can potentially improve access to hearing-health care and enable individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss to self-manage their condition. This study compared the usability and performance of a range of self-fitting over-the-counter (OTC-SF) hearing aids. <b>Research Design:</b> This cross-sectional study evaluated six OTC-SF hearing aids. <b>Study Sample:</b> Forty-three adults with self-perceived mild-to-moderate hearing difficulties participated in this study. <b>Data Collection and Analysis:</b> Participants were randomly assigned to two of six OTC-SF hearing aids and used the manufacturer-provided instructions and smartphone applications. These hearing aids included HP Hearing PRO, Jabra Enhance Plus, Lexie B2 Powered by Bose, Lexie Lumen, Soundwave Sontro, and Sony CRE-C10. Usability was assessed based on the fitting time, hearing aid skills and knowledge (HASK), self-reported ease of the SF process, and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) results. Performance was evaluated using the judgment of sound quality (JSQ) test and speech-in-noise benefit using the digits-in-noise and quick speech-in-noise tests. <b>Results:</b> Fitting time ranged from 14.4 to 27.1 min, with Lexie Lumen requiring the longest time (27.1 min; standard deviation [SD], 5.9 min) and HP Hearing PRO requiring the shortest time (14.4 min; SD = 1.9 min). The HASK scores varied, with Soundwave Sontro achieving the highest score (8.9/10) and HP Hearing PRO achieving the lowest score (6.8/10). Self-reported ease of SF and PSSUQ scores did not differ significantly between the OTC-SF hearing aids. Overall sound quality and clarity ratings significantly differed, with Lexie B2 receiving the highest rating (8.1/10 and 7.5/10) and HP Hearing PRO receiving the lowest rating (6.3/10 and 5.1/10). Speech-in-noise benefit did not differ significantly between devices. A thematic analysis identified seven themes of the participants' SF experiences and six themes of the researcher's field notes. Participants generally considered OTC-SF hearing aids user-friendly, although issues with Bluetooth connectivity, handling and insertion, and sound quality were noted by the researcher as common challenges. <b>Conclusions:</b> Usability and performance of OTC-SF hearing aids were similar across devices in terms of usability and speech-in-noise benefits. However, the devices exhibited variations in fitting time, HASK, and sound quality, including the overall impression and clarity. These findings can support the decisions of consumers and recommendations of health-care professionals. Further research of the long-term usability and selection processes of OTC-SF hearing aids is necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"23-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445276/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.240037\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.240037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:非处方(OTC)助听器可以潜在地改善获得听力保健的机会,并使轻度至中度听力损失的个人能够自我管理他们的状况。本研究比较了一系列自配非处方助听器(OTC-SF)的可用性和性能。研究设计:本横断面研究评估了6种OTC-SF助听器。研究样本:43名自认为有轻度至中度听力障碍的成年人参加了这项研究。数据收集和分析:参与者被随机分配到六种OTC-SF助听器中的两种,并使用制造商提供的说明和智能手机应用程序。这些助听器包括HP Hearing PRO, Jabra Enhance Plus, Bose驱动的Lexie B2, Lexie Lumen,声波Sontro和索尼CRE-C10。可用性评估基于拟合时间、助听器技能和知识(HASK)、SF过程的自我报告易用性和研究后系统可用性问卷(PSSUQ)结果。使用音质判断(JSQ)测试对性能进行评估,使用数字噪声和快速语音噪声测试对语音噪声效益进行评估。结果:拟合时间14.4 ~ 27.1 min,其中Lexie Lumen拟合时间最长(27.1 min,标准差[SD]为5.9 min), HP Hearing PRO拟合时间最短(14.4 min;SD = 1.9 min)。HASK得分各不相同,声波Sontro得分最高(8.9/10),惠普听力PRO得分最低(6.8/10)。自我报告的SF和PSSUQ评分在OTC-SF助听器之间没有显着差异。整体音质和清晰度评分差异显著,Lexie B2的评分最高(8.1/10和7.5/10),HP Hearing pro的评分最低(6.3/10和5.1/10)。不同设备的噪音语音效果没有显著差异。主题分析确定了参与者SF体验的七个主题和研究人员实地笔记的六个主题。参与者普遍认为OTC-SF助听器对用户友好,尽管研究人员指出蓝牙连接、处理和插入以及音质等问题是常见的挑战。结论:OTC-SF助听器的可用性和性能在不同设备的可用性和噪音语音效益方面是相似的。然而,这些设备在装配时间、HASK和声音质量(包括整体印象和清晰度)方面表现出差异。这些发现可以支持消费者的决定和卫生保健专业人员的建议。对OTC-SF助听器的长期可用性和选择过程进行进一步的研究是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Usability and Performance of Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.

Purpose: Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids can potentially improve access to hearing-health care and enable individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss to self-manage their condition. This study compared the usability and performance of a range of self-fitting over-the-counter (OTC-SF) hearing aids. Research Design: This cross-sectional study evaluated six OTC-SF hearing aids. Study Sample: Forty-three adults with self-perceived mild-to-moderate hearing difficulties participated in this study. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were randomly assigned to two of six OTC-SF hearing aids and used the manufacturer-provided instructions and smartphone applications. These hearing aids included HP Hearing PRO, Jabra Enhance Plus, Lexie B2 Powered by Bose, Lexie Lumen, Soundwave Sontro, and Sony CRE-C10. Usability was assessed based on the fitting time, hearing aid skills and knowledge (HASK), self-reported ease of the SF process, and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) results. Performance was evaluated using the judgment of sound quality (JSQ) test and speech-in-noise benefit using the digits-in-noise and quick speech-in-noise tests. Results: Fitting time ranged from 14.4 to 27.1 min, with Lexie Lumen requiring the longest time (27.1 min; standard deviation [SD], 5.9 min) and HP Hearing PRO requiring the shortest time (14.4 min; SD = 1.9 min). The HASK scores varied, with Soundwave Sontro achieving the highest score (8.9/10) and HP Hearing PRO achieving the lowest score (6.8/10). Self-reported ease of SF and PSSUQ scores did not differ significantly between the OTC-SF hearing aids. Overall sound quality and clarity ratings significantly differed, with Lexie B2 receiving the highest rating (8.1/10 and 7.5/10) and HP Hearing PRO receiving the lowest rating (6.3/10 and 5.1/10). Speech-in-noise benefit did not differ significantly between devices. A thematic analysis identified seven themes of the participants' SF experiences and six themes of the researcher's field notes. Participants generally considered OTC-SF hearing aids user-friendly, although issues with Bluetooth connectivity, handling and insertion, and sound quality were noted by the researcher as common challenges. Conclusions: Usability and performance of OTC-SF hearing aids were similar across devices in terms of usability and speech-in-noise benefits. However, the devices exhibited variations in fitting time, HASK, and sound quality, including the overall impression and clarity. These findings can support the decisions of consumers and recommendations of health-care professionals. Further research of the long-term usability and selection processes of OTC-SF hearing aids is necessary.

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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (JAAA) is the Academy''s scholarly peer-reviewed publication, issued 10 times per year and available to Academy members as a benefit of membership. The JAAA publishes articles and clinical reports in all areas of audiology, including audiological assessment, amplification, aural habilitation and rehabilitation, auditory electrophysiology, vestibular assessment, and hearing science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信