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 |
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. (PI), Millman, R. (PI), Lamb, W. (Support team), Dawes, P. (PI), Plack, C. (PI), Stone, M. (PI), Kluk-De Kort, K. (PI), Moore, D. (PI), Morton, C. (PI), Prendergast, G. (PI), Couth, S. (PI), Schlittenlacher, J. (PI), Chilton, H. (PI), Visram, A. (Researcher), Dillon, H. (PI), Guest, H. (Researcher), Heinrich, A. (PI), Jackson, I. (Researcher), Littlejohn, J. (Researcher), Jones, L. (PI), Lough, M. (Researcher), Morgan, R. (Researcher), Perugia, E. (Researcher), Roughley, A. (Researcher), Whiston, H. (Researcher), Wright, C. (Support team), Saunders, G. (PI), Kelly, C. (PI), Cross, H. (Researcher), Loughran, M. (Researcher), Hoseinabadi, R. (PI) & Vercammen, C. (PI)
Project: Research