Technology, Expectations, and Adjustment to Hearing Loss: Predictors of Hearing Aid Outcome

Julie Jerram, Suzanne C. Purdy

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2001 · 105 citations · 82 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The study examined how technology, demographics, and pre‑use expectations and attitudes influence hearing‑aid outcomes. Participants completed questionnaires on adjustment, expectations, attitudes, and benefit, and regression analyses assessed how these factors affected hearing‑aid use, satisfaction, and benefit. Higher pre‑use expectations and acceptance of hearing loss predicted greater use time and benefit, while newer technologies such as multiple‑memory, multiple‑channel, and wide dynamic range compression aids produced higher satisfaction and benefit; 81 % of participants returned outcome questionnaires.

Abstract

This study examined the influence of technology, demographic factors, and prefitting expectations, attitudes, and adjustment to hearing loss on hearing aid outcome. Clients obtaining new hearing aids completed questionnaires measuring personal adjustment to hearing loss, expectations of and attitudes toward hearing aids, and hearing aid benefit. Eighty-one percent of the 200 subjects completing the prefitting questionnaires returned questionnaires evaluating hearing aid outcome. Factors affecting hearing aid use, overall satisfaction, and benefit were investigated using regression analyses. Higher use time was associated with higher prefitting expectations and greater acceptance of hearing loss. Greater benefit in easy and difficult listening situations was predicted by higher prefitting expectations. Multiple-memory hearing aids produced higher satisfaction. Benefit was greater for multiple-memory, multiple-channel, and wide dynamic range compression aids. Findings were consistent with previous studies showing positive outcomes for newer technologies but also showed that two subjective factors, prefitting hearing aid expectations and acceptance of hearing loss, significantly influenced hearing aid outcome.

References

82