Effects of remote ear-nose-and-throat specialist assessment screening on self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY International Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-27 DOI:10.1080/14992027.2023.2298506
Lene Dahl Siggaard, Henrik Jacobsen, Dan Dupont Hougaard, Morten Hoegsbro
{"title":"Effects of remote ear-nose-and-throat specialist assessment screening on self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction.","authors":"Lene Dahl Siggaard, Henrik Jacobsen, Dan Dupont Hougaard, Morten Hoegsbro","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2023.2298506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the impact of remote versus in-person ear-nose-and-throat (ENT) specialist screening before hearing treatment on self-reported hearing aid (HA) benefit and satisfaction among adult first-time HA users.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Participants were randomised to either remote or in-person ENT assessment before treatment initiation. Hearing ability, hearing quality, and treatment satisfaction were assessed pre- and post-HA treatment using the SSQ12, IOI-HA, and selected items from the 2021 Danish national Patient-Reported Experience Measures. Average daily HA usage was also recorded.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>751 adult potential first-time HA users with self-reported hearing impairment were included; 501 participants were remotely assessed in private or public audiological clinics, and 250 control group participants were assessed in-person by private ENT specialists. Of the 658 participants who completed the entire trial, 454 received HAs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant post-treatment HA benefit differences were found between groups. Remotely assessed HA recipients in private clinics expressed slightly higher staff and waiting time satisfaction. Participants with normal hearing and mild/moderate hearing loss reported higher pre-treatment hearing ability and quality. No significant difference in average daily HA usage was observed between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that remote screening does not compromise patient-reported HA benefit and satisfaction when compared to in-person screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"25-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2023.2298506","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore the impact of remote versus in-person ear-nose-and-throat (ENT) specialist screening before hearing treatment on self-reported hearing aid (HA) benefit and satisfaction among adult first-time HA users.

Design: Participants were randomised to either remote or in-person ENT assessment before treatment initiation. Hearing ability, hearing quality, and treatment satisfaction were assessed pre- and post-HA treatment using the SSQ12, IOI-HA, and selected items from the 2021 Danish national Patient-Reported Experience Measures. Average daily HA usage was also recorded.

Study sample: 751 adult potential first-time HA users with self-reported hearing impairment were included; 501 participants were remotely assessed in private or public audiological clinics, and 250 control group participants were assessed in-person by private ENT specialists. Of the 658 participants who completed the entire trial, 454 received HAs.

Results: No significant post-treatment HA benefit differences were found between groups. Remotely assessed HA recipients in private clinics expressed slightly higher staff and waiting time satisfaction. Participants with normal hearing and mild/moderate hearing loss reported higher pre-treatment hearing ability and quality. No significant difference in average daily HA usage was observed between groups.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that remote screening does not compromise patient-reported HA benefit and satisfaction when compared to in-person screening.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程耳鼻喉科专家评估筛查对自述助听器效益和满意度的影响。
目的:探讨在听力治疗前进行远程耳鼻喉科专家筛查与面对面耳鼻喉科专家筛查对首次使用助听器(HA)的成年人自我报告的助听器(HA)收益和满意度的影响:探讨在听力治疗前进行远程耳鼻喉科专家筛查与面对面耳鼻喉科专家筛查对首次使用助听器的成人自述助听器(HA)收益和满意度的影响:设计:参与者在开始治疗前随机接受远程或面对面耳鼻喉科专家评估。使用SSQ12、IOI-HA以及2021年丹麦全国患者报告体验测量中的选定项目,对助听器治疗前后的听力能力、听力质量和治疗满意度进行评估。研究样本:751 名自述有听力障碍的首次使用助听器的成年潜在用户被纳入研究范围;501 名参与者在私立或公立听力诊所接受远程评估,250 名对照组参与者由私立耳鼻喉科专家亲自评估。在完成整个试验的 658 名参与者中,有 454 人接受了助听器治疗:结果:各组间的 HA 治疗后收益无明显差异。在私人诊所接受远程评估的听力障碍患者对工作人员和等待时间的满意度略高。听力正常和轻度/中度听力损失的受试者表示治疗前听力能力和听力质量较高。各组间每日平均使用 HA 的次数无明显差异:研究结果表明,与面对面筛查相比,远程筛查不会影响患者报告的 HA 受益度和满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Audiology
International Journal of Audiology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
133
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Audiology is committed to furthering development of a scientifically robust evidence base for audiology. The journal is published by the British Society of Audiology, the International Society of Audiology and the Nordic Audiological Society.
期刊最新文献
What factors do health professionals view as influencing the success of otitis media detection programs for First Nations children? A scoping review and synthesis of qualitative research. Effect of pre-school sound exposure on children's hearing function: results from preparatory studies assessing hearing function by distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Hearing aid wear time and its impact on vocabulary in preschoolers with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. Effect of reducing electrical stimulation rate on hearing performance of Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients. What's in a name? A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of non-medical amplification devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing losses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1