Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32960175›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2020

Effectiveness of a Web-Based SUpport PRogram (SUPR) for Hearing Aid Users Aged 50+: Two-Arm, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Janine Fj Meijerink, Marieke Pronk, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte, Vera Jansen, Sophia E Kramer

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Additional interventions for enhancing the quality-of-life of older adults using hearing aids: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janine Fj MeijerinkOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7065-5967
Marieke PronkOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8472-4900
Birgit I Lissenberg-WitteEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9448-1826
Vera JansenSchoonenberg HoorSupport, Dordrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1729-5592
Sophia E KramerOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0451-8179
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHearing aid (HA) use is known to improve health outcomes for people with hearing loss. Despite that, HA use is suboptimal, and communication issues and hearing-related activity limitations and participation restrictions often remain. Web-based self-management communication programs may support people with hearing loss to effectively self-manage the impact of hearing loss in their daily lives.

objectiveThe goal of the research is to examine the short- and long-term effects of a web-based self-management SUpport PRogram (SUPR) on communication strategy use (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcomes for HA users aged 50 years and older.

methodsClients of 36 HA dispensing practices were randomized to SUPR (SUPR recipients; n=180 HA users) and 34 to care as usual (controls; n=163 HA users). SUPR recipients received a practical support booklet and online materials delivered via email over the course of their 6-month HA rehabilitation trajectory. They were encouraged to appoint a communication partner and were offered optional email contact with the HA dispensing practice. The online materials included 3 instruction videos on HA handling, 5 videos on communication strategies, and 3 testimonial videos. Care as usual included a HA fitting rehabilitation trajectory only. Measurements were carried out at baseline, immediately postintervention, 6 months postintervention, and 12 months postintervention. The primary outcome measure was self-reported use of communication strategies (3 subscales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired [CPHI]). Secondary outcome measures included self-reported personal adjustment to hearing loss (CPHI); use, satisfaction and benefit of HAs and SUPR (use questionnaire; International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids [IOI-HA], Alternative Interventions [IOI-AI]); recommendation of HA dispensing services; self-efficacy for HA handling (Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids [MARS-HA]); readiness to act on hearing loss (University of Rhode Island Change Assessment adapted for hearing loss [URICA-HL]); and hearing disability (Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap [AIADH]).

resultsLinear mixed model analyses (intention to treat) showed no significant differences between the SUPR and control group in the course of communication strategy use (CPHI). Immediately postintervention, SUPR recipients showed significantly higher self-efficacy for advanced HA handling than the controls, which was sustained at 12 months (MARS-HA; mean difference immediately postintervention: 5.3, 95% CI 0.3 to 10.4; P=.04). Also, SUPR recipients showed significantly greater HA satisfaction than controls immediately postintervention (IOI-HA; 0.3, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.5; P=.006), which was sustained at 12 months, and significantly greater HA use than the controls immediately postintervention (IOI-HA; 0.3, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.5; P=.03), which was not sustained at 12 months.

conclusionsThis study provides ground to recommend adding SUPR to standard HA dispensing care, as long-term, modest improvements in HA outcomes were observed. Further research is needed to evaluate what adjustments to SUPR are needed to establish long-term effectiveness on outcomes in the psychosocial domain.

trial registrationISRCTN77340339; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77340339. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015012.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHearing AidsHumansInternetInternet-Based InterventionMaleSelf-Help Groupsauditory rehabilitationcommunication programshearing aid dispensing practicehearing aidshearing lossinternetrandomized controlled trialself-management

Identifiers

PMID32960175
PMCPMC7539169
OpenAlexW3034299942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.