Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28252160›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of audiology2017

The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Larry E Humes, Sara E Rogers, Tera M Quigley, Anna K Main, Dana L Kinney, Christine Herring

Erratum issued 5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of audiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01788423 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluating Hearing Aid Service Delivery Models

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2012 to 2018Enrolled323ConditionsPresbycusis, Aging, Hearing LossArmshearing aid
NCT01788432 no registry record found
NCT04030299 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Longitudinal Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

TypeinterventionalSponsorYu-Hsiang WuRan2019 to 2022Enrolled34ConditionsPresbycusisArmsOver-the-counter fitting
NCT05782153 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids: A Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorhearX GroupRan2023 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsHearing LossArmsIntervention A (hearing aid self-fitting with direct adjustment), Intervention B (hearing aid self-fitting with in-situ fitting)
NCT06499805 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Barriers and Facilitators to OTC Hearing Aids Success

TypeinterventionalSponsorYu-Hsiang WuRan2025 to 2029Enrolled360ConditionsHearing Loss, Sensorineural, PresbycusisArmsAudiologist-based fitting, Over-the-counter fitting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Impact of hearing aid usage on the quality of life of the older adult in KwaZulu-Natal.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Larry E HumesDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Sara E RogersDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Tera M QuigleyDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Anna K MainDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Dana L KinneyDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Christine HerringDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Indiana University Bloomington · US

Funding

Efficacy of a Low-Cost Hearing Aid and Comparison of Service-Delivery ModelsR01DC011771 · NIDCD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI HUMES, LARRY E · 2012 to 2015
$1.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine efficacy of hearing aids in older adults using audiology best practices, to evaluate the efficacy of an alternative over-the-counter (OTC) intervention, and to examine the influence of purchase price on outcomes for both service-delivery models.

designThe design of this study was a single-site, prospective, double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial with three parallel branches: (a) audiology best practices (AB), (b) consumer decides OTC model (CD), and (c) placebo devices (P). Outcome measures were obtained after a typical 6-week trial period with follow-up 4-week AB-based trial for those initially assigned to CD and P groups.

settingOlder adults from the general community were recruited via newspaper and community flyers to participate at a university research clinic.

participantsParticipants were adults, ages 55-79 years, with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. There were 188 eligible participants: 163 enrolled as a volunteer sample, and 154 completed the intervention. INTERVENTION(S): All participants received the same high-end digital mini-behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted bilaterally. AB and P groups received best-practice services from audiologists; differing mainly in use of appropriate (AB) or placebo (P) hearing aid settings. CD participants self-selected their own pre-programmed hearing aids via an OTC model. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was a 66-item self-report, Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (Cox & Gilmore, 1990). Secondary outcome measure was the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) benefit. Additional measures of hearing-aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage were also obtained.

resultsPer-protocol analyses were performed. AB service-delivery model was found to be efficacious for most of the outcome measures, with moderate or large effect sizes (Cohen's d). CD service-delivery model was efficacious, with similar effect sizes. However, CD group had a significantly (p < .05) lower satisfaction and percentage (CD: 55%; AB: 81%; P: 36%) likely to purchase hearing aids after the trial.

conclusionsHearing aids are efficacious in older adults for both AB and CD service-delivery models. CD model of OTC service delivery yielded only slightly poorer outcomes than the AB model. Efficacious OTC models may increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for millions of older adults. Purchase price had no effect on outcomes, but a high percentage of those who rejected hearing aids paid the typical price (85%).

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01788432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01788423.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsAgedCommerceCorrection of Hearing ImpairmentDelivery of Health CareDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28252160
PMCPMC5597084
OpenAlexW2593164649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.