Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual’s audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual’s audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual’s validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.
DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1,370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.
RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual’s audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.
DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1,370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.
RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual’s audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International Journal of Audiology |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 1 Apr 2022 |
Embargoed Document
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
-
Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness (ManCAD)
Munro, K., Millman, R., Lamb, W., Dawes, P., Plack, C., Stone, M., Kluk-De Kort, K., Moore, D., Morton, C., Prendergast, G., Couth, S., Schlittenlacher, J., Chilton, H., Visram, A., Dillon, H., Guest, H., Heinrich, A., Jackson, I., Littlejohn, J., Jones, L., Lough, M., Morgan, R., Perugia, E., Roughley, A., Whiston, H., Wright, C., Saunders, G., Kelly, C., Cross, H., Loughran, M. & Hoseinabadi, R.
Project: Research