Observational studyJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2024
Measuring Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Everyday Listening Situations: Retrospective and In Situ Assessments Complement Each Other.
Observational study in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.American journal of audiology · 2024Review
- Beyond the Moment: How EMA Reporting Periods Affect Sampled Situations and Sensitivity to Hearing Aid Differences.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, we developed a hearing-related lifestyle questionnaire (HEARLI-Q), which asks respondents to rate their hearing aid (HA) satisfaction in 23 everyday listening situations. It is unknown how HA satisfaction on the retrospective HEARLI-Q scale compares with HA satisfaction measured on the same scale implemented in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). PURPOSE: To learn how retrospective (HEARLI-Q) and in situ (EMA) assessments can complement each other. RESEARCH
designAn observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-one experienced HA users. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The participants first filled out the HEARLI-Q questionnaire, followed by a 1-week EMA trial using their own HAs. HA satisfaction ratings were compared between the two questionnaires and the underlying drivers of discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings were evaluated.
resultsHA satisfaction ratings were significantly higher in EMA for speech communication with one or several people. Hearing difficulty in these situations was rated higher in HEARLI-Q than in EMA, but occurrence of those difficult listening situations was also rated to be lower. When comparing only the situations that occur on daily or weekly basis, the two questionnaires had similar HA satisfaction ratings.
conclusionsLower occurrence of difficult listening situations seems to be the key driver of discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings between EMA and HEARLI-Q. The advantage of EMA is that it provides insight into an individual's day-to-day life and is not prone to memory bias. HEARLI-Q, on the other hand, can capture situations that occur infrequently or are inconvenient to report in the moment. Administering HEARLI-Q and EMA in combination could give a more holistic view of HA satisfaction.
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.