Journal article 937 views 67 downloads
An analysis of hearing aid use: Data-logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire
Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, Volume: 48, Pages: 27 - 33
Swansea University Author: Tessa Watts
PDF | Version of RecordDownload (612.83KB)
IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome...
|Published in:||Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology|
Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
IntroductionThere is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using dataloggingand self-reported outcome measures is preferable to an approach that uses one method alone. A dual-stage approach may provide a comprehensive understanding of hearing aid use and help further develop a detailed understanding of some of the problems associated with non-use or under-use.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the relationship of self-reported hearing aid use using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile questionnaire (GHABP; Gatehouse, 1999) to hearing aid data-logging information, and to establish whether the GHABP can be used to accurately measure hearing aid use.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study conducted in Wales, United Kingdom. A total of 119 participants were recruited at their hearing aid follow-up appointments. The length of time between hearing aid fitting and follow-up was variable. With participants’ consent, data were collected using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile part 2 questionnaire and data-logging information stored in the hearing aid. Correlational analyses were used to assess the relationships between the two measures of hearing aid use.ResultsMean data-logging use was 5.87 hours per day (SD=5.15) and the mean GHABP use was 67.34% (SD=32.98). Both “use” variables failed a Shapiro Wilks test of normality. There was a strong positive Pearson rho correlation between datalogging use and GHABP use (rs, = .645, p <0.01). Analysis of the GHABP questionnaire revealed that 53 participants stated that they used their hearing aids between 81% and 100% of the time. There were some low levels of use when examining data logging in the context of variable GHABP results.ConclusionsIn participants who present higher GHABP use scores with lower levels of data-logging use, some plausible reasons include: I) Inadvertent overestimation of their use by patients (recall error), 2) The GHABP questionnaire may not be sufficiently sensitive or structured in such a way to effectively measure use. For example, “listening in a quiet environment” is not captured in a GHABP question, or 3) The reporting of use as a percentage may not be an appropriate measure of use. For this reason, in keeping with Perez and Edmonds (2012), both self-reported measures of use and data-logging should be used together and audiologists are reminded to consider both measures with some level of caution.
Hearing aid use ; data logging, patient reported outcome measures
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences