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.
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.
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.
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.
Evaluating Hearing Aid Service Delivery Models
Longitudinal Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids
Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids: A Randomized Control Trial
Barriers and Facilitators to OTC Hearing Aids Success
Who cites it
87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of Hearing Devices for Adults With Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Pooled it
- A multidisciplinary European guideline for tinnitus: diagnostics, assessment, and treatment.HNO · 2019Guideline
- Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Trends in hearingPooled it
- Self-Fit vs. Professional-Fit Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Trial
- Hearing Aid Service Models, Technology, and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Trial
- Effect of hearing intervention on communicative function: A secondary analysis of the ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A Follow-Up Clinical Trial Evaluating the Consumer-Decides Service Delivery Model.American journal of audiology · 2019Trial
- Self-Fitting Versus Professional-Fitting Hearing Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Hearing Aid Research.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of Smart Hearing Aid Technology on Self-Esteem in Patients with Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Cross-Sectional Multivariate Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Primary Care Screening and Management of Hearing Loss in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Facilitators and Barriers to Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Use in People With Dementia: Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Retrocochlear Auditory Dysfunctions (RADs) and Their Treatment: A Narrative Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Hearing Aid Amplification Schemes Adjusted to Tinnitus Pitch: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Audiology research · 2025Article
27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2019
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.