SynthesisTrends in hearing
Digital Interventions for First-Time Hearing Aid Users: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Effectiveness.
Synthesis in Trends in hearing. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital interventions are increasingly used to support hearing aid users; however, evidence for first-time hearing aid users remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of digital interventions to improve outcomes for first-time hearing aid users. The protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO; CRD420251125785) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched (January 2026). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and quasi-experimental studies evaluating internet-, app-, or web-based interventions. Outcomes were grouped into six domains: hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction, hearing and communication, knowledge, skills and self-management, speech-in-noise performance, and psychosocial and emotional adjustment. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted where ≥3 randomized trials reported comparable outcomes. Eleven publications (nine trials) were included. Most interventions focused on education, self-management, and counseling, with few targeting perceptual training. The most consistent improvements were observed in knowledge, skills and self-management (moderate-certainty). Evidence for hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction, hearing and communication, and psychosocial and emotional adjustment was limited and inconsistent (low-certainty), while speech-in-noise evidence was of very low certainty. Meta-analyses of hearing aid use and IOI-HA outcomes showed no significant pooled effects. Digital interventions show the most consistent evidence for improving knowledge, skills, and self-management. Evidence for other outcomes remains limited and inconsistent. Clinicians may consider digital educational programs complementing standard care. Future research should prioritize larger, pre-registered trials with broader interventions and standardized outcomes.
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.