Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2022 May;15(2):144-152. 10.21053/ceo.2021.00948.

Effect of Hearing Rehabilitation Therapy Program in Hearing Aid Users: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

• Han JS
• Park JM
• Kim Y
• Seo J
• Kim DK
• Park SY
• Park SN

• KMID: 2530160
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2021.00948

Abstract

Objectives
. Despite sufficient hearing gains, many patients with hearing loss have difficulty using hearing aids due to poor word recognition ability. This study was performed to introduce our hearing rehabilitation therapy (HRT) program for hearing aid users and to evaluate its effect on hearing improvement.
Methods
. In this prospective randomized case-control study, 37 participants with moderate or moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss who had used bilateral hearing aids for more than 3 months with sufficient functional hearing gain were enrolled in this study. Nineteen participants were randomly assigned to the control group (CG) and 18 patients were assigned to participate in our HRT program once a week for 8 consecutive weeks (hearing rehabilitation therapy group [HRTG]). Their hearing results and questionnaire scores for hearing handicap and hearing aid outcomes were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups.
Results
. After completing 8 weeks of the HRT program, the HRTG showed a significantly greater improvement in scores for consonant-only and consonant-vowel sound perception than the CG (P<0.05). In addition, the HRTG showed a significant improvement in hearing ability as measured by two questionnaires (p<0.05), while no differences were observed in the CG. However, word and sentence recognition test results did not show significant differences between the two groups.
Conclusion
. Even after short-term HRT, patients had subjectively better hearing outcomes and improved phoneme perception ability; this provides scientific evidence regarding a possible positive role for HRT programs in hearing aid users. Further validation in a larger population through a long-term follow-up study is needed.

Keyword

Hearing Loss; Rehabilitation; Hearing Aids

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Flow diagram for the hearing rehabilitation therapy clinical trial.

• 

  Fig. 2. A schematic presentation of the hearing rehabilitation training (HRT) protocol. The HRT program consisted of face-to-face training and self-home training with three interviews with an ENT doctor. A 30-minute face-to-face training was conducted once a week for 8 weeks, with the first 4-week period involving constant discrimination retraining and weeks 5–8 focusing on identification and understanding training. At the same time, patients were taught to perform self-home training every day at home. In the training process, the 10 most commonly used Korean consonants were used for training, starting with low-frequency consonants and gradually progressing to high-frequency consonants. The doctor’s role during our HRT program was to interview the patient three times (HRT prescription, reinforcement, and final motivation for self-HRT). AV, auditory-visua; AO, auditory-only.

• 

  Fig. 3. Baseline results of pure tone audiometry (PTA; A) and word recognition score (B) show no significant differences between the auditory training group and the control group (P>0.05, Mann-Whitney test or t-test). Error bars indicate standard deviation. HRTG, hearing rehabilitation therapy group; CG, control group.

• 

  Fig. 4. Changes in scores of the Korean consonant perception tests. Significantly higher mean changes in scores were observed in the HRTG under both consonant-only and consonant+vowel conditions (*P<0.05, Mann-Whitney test). A box and whisker plot shows summary of a set of data: maximum, 75th percentile; median, 25th percentile; and minimum. HRTG, hearing rehabilitation therapy group; CG, control group.

• 

  Fig. 5. Changes in hearing questionnaire scores. (A) The Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) score gradually increased in the hearing rehabilitation therapy group (HRTG), but no significant change was observed in the control group (CG), indicating that the HRTG had higher satisfaction than the CG with hearing aid use. Total (B), situational (C), and emotional (D) scores on the Korean version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory (K-HHIE) questionnaire significantly decreased in the HRTG, while no changes were observed in the CG, indicating that the level of discomfort regarding hearing loss significantly decreased after HRT. ***P<0.001, linear mixedeffects model.

Reference

1. Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss: rising prevalence and impact. Bull World Health Organ. 2019; Oct. 1. 97(10):646A.

2. Gates GA, Mills JH. Presbycusis. Lancet. 2005; Sep. 366(9491):1111–20.

3. Ng JH, Loke AY. Determinants of hearing-aid adoption and use among the elderly: a systematic review. Int J Audiol. 2015; May. 54(5):291–300.

4. Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Portz LJ, Abrams HB, Lesner S, et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; Feb. 18(2):151–83.

5. Bisgaard N, Ruf S. Findings from EuroTrak surveys from 2009 to 2015: hearing loss prevalence, hearing aid adoption, and benefits of hearing aid use. Am J Audiol. 2017; Oct. 26(3S):451–61.

6. Moon IJ, Baek SY, Cho YS. Hearing aid use and associated factors in South Korea. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; Oct. 94(42):e1580.

7. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer”: the consumers’ perspective. Hear J. 2000; Feb. 53(2):34–41.

8. Houston DM, Bergeson TR. Hearing versus listening: attention to speech and its role in language acquisition in deaf infants with cochlear implants. Lingua. 2014; Jan. 139:10–25.

9. Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS One. 2013; May. 8(5):e62836.

10. Saunders GH, Smith SL, Chisolm TH, Frederick MT, McArdle RA, Wilson RH. A randomized control trial: supplementing hearing aid use with listening and communication enhancement (LACE) auditory training. Ear Hear. 2016; Jul-Aug. 37(4):381–96.

11. Sommers MS, Tye-Murray N, Barcroft J, Spehar BP. The effects of meaning-based auditory training on behavioral measures of perceptual effort in individuals with impaired hearing. Semin Hear. 2015; Nov. 36(4):263–72.

12. Yu J, Jeon H, Song C, Han W. Speech perception enhancement in elderly hearing aid users using an auditory training program for mobile devices. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017; Jan. 17(1):61–8.

13. Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss grades and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Bull World Health Organ. 2019; Oct. 97(10):725–8.

14. Song YJ, Lee HJ, Jang HS. A study on the development of KNISEDASP (KNISE-Developmental Assessment of Speech Perception) for auditory training. Asan: Korea National Institute for Special Education;2010.

15. Kim JS, Shin EY, Shin HW, Lee KD. Development of Korean Consonant Perception Test. J Acoust Soc Korea. 2011; Jul. 30(5):295–302.

16. An LJ, Kim JS, Pae SY. The study on developing a test of speech perception in noise. Korean J Audiol. 2002; Dec. 6(2):118–27.

17. Chu H, Cho YS, Park SN, Byun JY, Shin JE, Han GC, et al. Standardization for a Korean Adaptation of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids: study of validity and reliability. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2012; Jan. 55(1):20–5.

18. Park SN, Han GC, Cho YS, Byun JY, Shin JE, Chu HS, et al. Standardization for a Korean version of Hearing Handicap Inventory for the elderly. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2011; Dec. 54(12):828–34.

19. Weinstein BE. Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process. Trends Amplif. 1997; Dec. 2(4):117–37.

20. Chisolm TH, Saunders GH, Frederick MT, McArdle RA, Smith SL, Wilson RH. Learning to listen again: the role of compliance in auditory training for adults with hearing loss. Am J Audiol. 2013; Dec. 22(2):339–42.

21. Hickson L, Worrall L, Scarinci N. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the active communication education program for older people with hearing impairment. Ear Hear. 2007; Apr. 28(2):212–30.

22. Preminger JE, Ziegler CH. Can auditory and visual speech perception be trained within a group setting. Am J Audiol. 2008; Jun. 17(1):80–97.

23. Humes LE, Skinner KG, Kinney DL, Rogers SE, Main AK, Quigley TM. Clinical effectiveness of an at-home auditory training program: a randomized controlled trial. Ear Hear. 2019; Sep/Oct. 40(5):1043–60.

24. Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006; Sep. 17(8):538–58.

25. Stecker GC, Bowman GA, Yund EW, Herron TJ, Roup CM, Woods DL. Perceptual training improves syllable identification in new and experienced hearing aid users. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; Jul-Aug. 43(4):537–52.

26. Molloy K, Moore DR, Sohoglu E, Amitay S. Less is more: latent learning is maximized by shorter training sessions in auditory perceptual learning. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5):e36929.

27. Boothroyd A. Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work. Trends Amplif. 2007; Jun. 11(2):63–71.

28. de Miranda EC, Gil D, Iorio MC. Formal auditory training in elderly hearing aid users. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2008; Nov-Dec. 74(6):919–25.

29. Lundberg M, Andersson G, Lunner T. A randomized, controlled trial of the short-term effects of complementing an educational program for hearing aid users with telephone consultations. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011; Nov-Dec. 22(10):654–62.

30. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002; Jan. 41(1):30–5.

31. Ferguson M, Brandreth M, Brassington W, Leighton P, Wharrad H. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits of a multimedia educational program for first-time hearing aid users. Ear Hear. 2016; Mar-Apr. 37(2):123–36.