ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Impact of Hearing Loss Severity on Hearing Aid Benefit Among Adult Users.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundHearing loss (HL) among older adults is a major global health concern. Hearing aids (HAs) offer an effective solution to manage HL and enhance the quality of life. However, the adoption and the consistent use of HAs remain low, making non-use a significant barrier to successful audiological rehabilitation. The aim of the study was to assess the benefit of HAs among patients with different degrees of HL and to determine the profiles of patients who have the least benefit from HAs.
methodsthe HA benefits were assessed by using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. Participants were assigned to the study groups based on the pure-tone audiometry. This paper presents the results obtained by using HAs in various listening environments among 167 patients.
resultsThe majority of individuals benefited from HAs in a noisy environment while a reverberant environment provided the lowest benefit. It was observed that the degree of HL had a statistically significant impact on the benefits of HAs in terms of the communication ease, the reverberation, the background noise, and the global score. A moderately positive correlation was observed between the unaided APHAB and the HL degree. The subjects' APHAB scores ranged from the 50th to the 65th percentile. Additionally, women had a significantly better improvement than men.
conclusionsHAs improved communication in everyday life situations among 91.6% of HA users. The degree of HL influences APHAB scores. Patients with a severe degree of HL achieved the greatest APHAB scores while male patients with mild HL received the lowest benefits of HAs. Both HL and the age, gender, and HA type are factors that also play important roles. The APHAB questionnaire is a reliable screening test for patients with hearing difficulties.
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.