Dataset Information

Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Hearing loss is one of the most common chronic disabilities in older adults, yet reported rates of users' satisfaction with hearing aids are low. Some believe that physicians can provide patients who are pursuing a hearing aid fitting an impartial opinion that will improve hearing aid satisfaction.

Objective

To determine whether a physician consultation increased or decreased patients' satisfaction with hearing aids compared with patients undergoing hearing aid fitting with a dispensing audiologist alone.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter, parallel-group, standard regimen-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted in offices of audiologists, family physicians, and a hospital-based neurotologist in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and recruited participants from July 2016 to December 2020 with a 3-month postintervention follow-up. The final data analysis was conducted on March 25, 2022. Adult first-time hearing aid users with averaged sensorineural hearing losses of more than 25 dB were prospectively allocated by random number generation to control and intervention groups. Participants were excluded from analysis if they did not attend follow-up or complete the study questionnaire.

Interventions

Control participants were followed up solely by their dispensing audiologist. The intervention group attended a single structured visit with a physician in addition to their audiologist's determined follow-up.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcome: hearing aid satisfaction 3 months postfitting as measured by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire. Secondary outcome: number of returned hearing aids. Prerecruitment null hypothesis: no intergroup difference in postfitting hearing aid satisfaction. Intergroup difference in mean SADL questionnaire scores analyzed by effect size and the Student t test and proportion of returned hearing aids by the Fischer exact test.

Results

A total of 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [8.5] years; 64 women [48.1%]) were recruited. Of these, 51 randomized to the control group (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [8.3] years; 28 women [54.9%]) and 42 to the physician intervention (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [7.6] years; 17 women [40.5%]) had results that were analyzed. There was no clinically meaningful intergroup difference in participants' SADL scores (control: mean [SD] score, 5.33 [0.72]; physician consultation: mean [SD] score, 5.35 [0.61]), the mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.29), or returned hearing aids (control, 1; physician consultation, 0).

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that a physician consultation that is focused on hearing change does not alter a patient's satisfaction with hearing aids 3 months postfitting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02842905.

SUBMITTER: Zhao K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9121297 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Zhao Kevin K Hambley Marke M Venema Theodore T Marynewich Susan S McNeely Brendan B Nunez Desmond A DA

JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery 20220701 7

<h4>Importance</h4>Hearing loss is one of the most common chronic disabilities in older adults, yet reported rates of users' satisfaction with hearing aids are low. Some believe that physicians can provide patients who are pursuing a hearing aid fitting an impartial opinion that will improve hearing aid satisfaction.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether a physician consultation increased or decreased patients' satisfaction with hearing aids compared with patients undergoing hearing aid fitting ...[more]

PMID: 35588353

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial.InterventionsA commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks).ResultsSixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures.Conclusion and relevanceIn this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

Project description:ImportanceMelanoma is among the most lethal skin cancers; it has become the fifth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, and incidence rates are rising. Population approaches to reducing incidence have focused on mass media campaigns to promote earlier presentation and potentially improve melanoma outcomes; however, interventions using smartphone applications targeting those with the greatest risk could promote earlier presentation to health care professionals for individuals with new or changing skin lesions.ObjectiveTo study the effect of a commercially available skin self-monitoring (SSM) smartphone application among individuals with increased risk of melanoma on their decision to seek help for changing skin lesions.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted in 12 family practices in Eastern England between 2016 and 2017. A total of 238 participants, aged 18 to 75 years and with an increased risk of melanoma, were identified using a real-time melanoma risk assessment tool in family practice waiting rooms. Analysis was intention to treat. Participants were observed for 12 months, and data analysis was conducted from January to August 2018.InterventionThe intervention and control groups received a consultation with standard written advice on sun protection and skin cancer detection. The intervention group had an SSM application loaded on their smartphone and received instructions for use and monthly self-monitoring reminders.Main outcomes and measuresThe coprimary outcomes were skin consultation rates with family practice physicians and patient intervals, measured as the time between noticing a skin change and consulting with a family practice clinician. Follow-up questionnaires were sent at 6 and 12 months, and consultation rates were extracted from family practice records. Secondary outcomes included skin self-examination benefits and barriers, self-efficacy for consulting without delay, perceived melanoma risk, sun protection habits, and potential harms.ResultsA total of 238 patients were randomized (median [interquartile range] age, 55 [43-65] years, 131 [55.0%] women, 227 [95.4%] white British; 119 [50.0%] randomized to the intervention group). Overall, 51 participants (21.4%) had consultations regarding skin changes during the 12 months of follow-up, and 157 participants (66.0%) responded to at least 1 follow-up questionnaire. There were no significant differences in skin consultation rates (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.66; P = .89), measures of SSM (adjusted mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.83 to 1.00; P = .86), or psychological harm (eg, Melanoma Worry Scale: adjusted mean difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.31; P = .58).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, recruitment, retention, and initial delivery of the intervention were feasible, and this research provided no evidence of harm from the SSM smartphone application. However, no evidence of benefit on skin self-examination or health care consulting was found, and there is no reason at this stage to recommend its implementation in this population at increased risk of melanoma.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16061621.

Project description:ObjectiveProvision of information is already part of standard care and may not be sufficient to promote hearing aid use. The I-PLAN is a behavior change intervention that is designed to promote hearing aid use in adults. It consists of a prompt, an action plan and provision of information. The objective was to test the effectiveness of the I-PLAN prompt and plan components in promoting hearing aid use and benefit. Hypotheses were: there would be greater hearing aid use, benefit, self-regulation, and hearing aid use habit among participants who received the prompt or plan component, compared with no prompt or no plan component, and the effect would be the greatest in participants who received both prompt and plan; and self-regulation and habit would mediate the effect of prompt and/or plan components on hearing aid use and benefit.DesignA 2 x 2 factorial randomized controlled trial design. Two hundred forty new adult patients (60 in each group) were randomized to: information (info) only; info + prompt; info + plan; or info + prompt + plan. All participants received treatment as usual in addition to I-PLAN components, which were provided in a sealed envelope at the end of the hearing aid fitting consultation. Participants in the prompt group were instructed to use their hearing aid box as a physical prompt to remind them to use the device. Participants in the plan group were instructed to write an action plan to encourage them to turn their intentions into action. Participants, audiologists, and researchers were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was self-reported proportion of time hearing aids were used in situations where they had listening difficulties. Secondary outcomes were hearing aid use derived from data logging, self-reported hearing aid benefit, self-reported self-regulation, and habit. Outcomes were measured at 6-week post-fitting.ResultsContrary to predictions, participants who received the prompt component reported using their hearing aid less than participants without the prompt (p = 0.03; d = 0.24). The mean proportion of time hearing aid were used was 73.4% of the time in the prompt group compared with 79.9% of the time in the no prompt group. Participants who received the plan component reported using their hearing aids more frequently than those who did not receive the plan (Meanplan = 81.0% vs Meannoplan = 71.8% of the time; p = 0.01; d = 0.34). Receiving both prompt and plan components did not change self-reported proportion of time hearing aids were used but data-logging use was significantly reduced. The prompt reduced self-regulation of hearing aid use compared with the no prompt (p = 0.04; d = 0.28), while the plan promoted stronger hearing aid use habits than the no plan group (p = 0.02; d = 0.30).ConclusionsAudiologists should consider using action plans to promote hearing aid use. Despite the decrease in hearing aid use when using the hearing aid box as a physical prompt, hearing aid use was still high (≈70% of the time). The hearing aid box may have slightly reduced hearing aid use by undermining self-regulation. Participants may have delegated responsibility for hearing aid use to the prompt. Subsequent studies should evaluate different prompts and test the long-term benefit of the plan on hearing aid use via habit formation.

Project description:Importance:Each year, cellulitis leads to 650 000 hospital admissions and is estimated to cost $3.7 billion in the United States. Previous literature has demonstrated a high misdiagnosis rate for cellulitis, which results in unnecessary antibiotic use and health care cost. Objective:To determine whether dermatologic consultation decreases duration of hospital stay or intravenous antibiotic treatment duration in patients with cellulitis. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized clinical trial was conducted in a large urban tertiary care hospital between October 2012 and January 2017, with 1-month follow-up duration. Patients were randomized to the control group, which received the standard of care (ie, treatment by primary medicine team), or the intervention group, which received dermatology consultation. Medical chart review of demographic information and hospital courses was performed. Adult patients hospitalized with presumed diagnosis of cellulitis were eligible. A total of 1300 patients were screened, 1125 were excluded, and 175 were included. Statistical analysis was employed to identify significant outcome differences between the 2 groups. Interventions:Dermatology consultation within 24 hours of hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures:Length of hospital stay and duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment. Results:Of 175 participants, 70 (40%) were women and 105 (60%) were men. The mean age was 58.8 years. Length of hospital stay was not statistically different between the 2 groups. The duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment (<4 days: 86.4% vs 72.5%; absolute difference, 13.9%; 95% CI, 1.9%-25.9%; P = .04) and duration of total antibiotic treatment was significantly lower in patients who had early dermatology consultation (<10 days: 50.6% vs 32.5%; absolute difference, 18.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-32.5%; P = .01). Clinical improvement at 2 weeks was significantly higher for those in the intervention group (79 [89.3%] vs 59 [68.3%]; absolute difference, 21.0%; 95% CI, 9.3%-32.7%; P < .001). There was no significant difference in 1-month readmission rate between the groups (4 [4.5%] vs 6 [6.9%]; absolute difference, -2.4%; 95% CI, -9.3% to 4.5%; P = .54). In the intervention group, the rate of cellulitis misdiagnosis was 30.7% (27 of 88 participants). Among the entire cohort, 101 (57.7%) patients were treated with courses of antibiotics longer than what is recommended by guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance:Early dermatologic consultation can improve outcomes in patients with suspected cellulitis by identifying alternate diagnoses, treating modifiable risk factors, and decreasing length of antibiotic treatment. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01706913.

Project description:ImportanceDevelopmental delays and disabilities are common in children. Research has indicated that intervention during the early years of a child's life has a positive effect on cognitive development, social skills and behavior, and subsequent school performance.ObjectiveTo determine whether a computerized clinical decision support system is an effective approach to improve standardized developmental surveillance and screening (DSS) within primary care practices.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cluster randomized clinical trial performed in 4 pediatric clinics from June 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, children younger than 66 months seen for primary care were studied.InterventionsWe compared surveillance and screening practices after adding a DSS module to an existing computer decision support system.Main outcomes and measuresThe rates at which children were screened for developmental delay.ResultsMedical records were reviewed for 360 children (180 each in the intervention and control groups) to compare rates of developmental screening at the 9-, 18-, or 30-month well-child care visits. The DSS module led to a significant increase in the percentage of patients screened with a standardized screening tool (85.0% vs 24.4%, P < .001). An additional 120 records (60 each in the intervention and control groups) were reviewed to examine surveillance rates at visits outside the screening windows. The DSS module led to a significant increase in the percentage of patients whose parents were assessed for concerns about their child's development (71.7% vs 41.7%, P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceUsing a computerized clinical decision support system to automate the screening of children for developmental delay significantly increased the numbers of children screened at 9, 18, and 30 months of age. It also significantly improved surveillance at other visits. Moreover, it increased the number of children who ultimately were diagnosed as having developmental delay and who were referred for timely services at an earlier age.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01351077.

Dataset Information

Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Effect of Physician Consultation on Satisfaction With Hearing Aid Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets