ISSN: 1300 - 6525 E-ISSN: 2149 - 0880
kulak burun boğaz
ve baş boyun cerrahisi dergisi
http://dergi.kbb-bbc.org.tr
Kayıtlı İndeksler








ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Non-Audiological and Audiological Factors as Indicators of Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Adults
Erişkinlerde İşitme Cihazı Memnuniyetinin Göstergesi Olarak Odyolojik ve Odyolojik Olmayan Faktörler
Received Date : 15 Feb 2023
Accepted Date : 09 Mar 2023
Available Online : 20 Mar 2023
Doi: 10.24179/kbbbbc.2023-96137 - Makale Dili: EN
KBB ve BBC Dergisi. 2023;31(2):69-74
Copyright © 2020 by Turkey Association of Society of Ear Nose Throat and Head Neck Surgery. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study’s aim is to determine the prominent factor of hearing aid (HA) satisfaction in individuals using HAs by examining the effects of audiologic factors and self-esteem on HA satisfaction, and to create evidence-based data for counseling and rehabilitation services related to HA. Material and Methods: 86 individuals using bilateral HA aged from 55-80 (71.37±7.95) years participated. Word Recognition Scores (WRS), Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Turkish version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA-TR) were used as assessment tools. Linear regression and correlation analysis were used to determine the amount of variance explained by effective factors in HA satisfaction. Results: There was a significant positive and low-level relationship between the level of satisfaction with the HA (IOI-HA-TR) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Score (Spearman correlation analysis; r=0.393, p<0.001). There was no significant relationship between the level of satisfaction with the HA (IOI-HATR) and the audiological factors evaluated in the study (RGDT and WRS) (Spearman correlation analysis, p>0.05). While self-esteem explains 26.2% of the variation in satisfaction (R²=0.262) (linear regression analysis; p<0.01), the ability to process temporal features of the sound (RGDT) explains 6.9% (R²=0.069) (linear regression analysis; p<0.05). Conclusion: This study emphasizes that the self-esteem of individuals is a prominent factor in satisfaction with hearing aids, and the importance of enriching audiological rehabilitation with multidisciplinary practices.
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, odyolojik faktörler ve benlik saygısının işitme cihazı [hearing aid (HA)] memnuniyeti üzerindeki etkisini inceleyerek, HA memnuniyetinde öne çıkan faktörü belirlemek ve HA ile ilgili danışmanlık ve rehabilitasyon hizmetleri için kanıta dayalı veriler oluşturmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya, 55-80 (71,37±7,95) yaş arası çift taraflı HA kullanan 86 kişi katılmıştır. Değerlendirme araçları olarak Konuşmayı Ayırt Etme Puanı (KAEP), Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT), Rosenberg Benlik Saygısı Ölçeği ve Uluslararası İşitme Cihazları Değerlendirme Envanteri Türkçe versiyonu [International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HATR)] kullanılmıştır. HA memnuniyetinde etkili olan faktörlerin açıkladığı varyans miktarını belirlemek için doğrusal regresyon ve korelasyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: HA’dan memnuniyet düzeyi (IOI-HATR) ve Rosenberg Benlik Saygısı Ölçeği skoru arasında pozitif yönde ve düşük düzeyde anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur (Spearman korelasyon analizi; r=0,393, p<0,001). HA’dan memnuniyet düzeyi (IOI-HA-TR) ve çalışmada değerlendirilen odyolojik faktörler (RGDT ve KAEP) arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır (Spearman korelasyon analizi, p>0,05). Benlik saygısı memnuniyetteki değişimin %26,2’sini (R²=0,262) (doğrusal regresyon analizi; p<0,01) açıklarken, sesin zamansal özelliklerini işleme yeteneği (RGDT) %6,9’unu (R²=0,069) (doğrusal regresyon analizi; p<0,05) açıklamaktadır. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, bireylerin benlik saygılarının HA’dan memnuniyetlerinde öne çıkan bir faktör olduğunu ve odyolojik rehabilitasyonun multidisipliner uygulamalarla zenginleştirilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.
KAYNAKLAR
  1. Souza PE, Yueh B, Sarubbi M, Loovis CF. Fitting hearing aids with the Articulation Index: impact on hearing aid effectiveness. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(4):473-81. [PubMed] 
  2. Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT, Pérez-González P, Blanco JL, Kalluri S, Edwards B. Predictors of hearing-aid outcomes. Trends Hear. 2017;21:2331216517730526. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  3. Wu X, Ren Y, Wang Q, Li B, Wu H, Huang Z, et al. Factors associated with the efficiency of hearing aids for patients with age-related hearing loss. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:485-92. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  4. Gussekloo J, de Bont LE, von Faber M, Eekhof JA, de Laat JA, Hulshof JH, et al. Auditory rehabilitation of older people from the general population--the Leiden 85-plus study. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(492):536-40. [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  5. Davidson A, Musiek F, Fisher JM, Marrone N. Investigating the role of auditory processing abilities in long-term self-reported hearing aid outcomes among adults age 60+ years. J Am Acad Audiol. 2021;32(7):405-19. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  6. Arlinger S, Nordqvist P, Öberg M. International outcome inventory for hearing aids: data from a large Swedish quality register database. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(3S):443-50. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Pronk M, Deeg DJH, Versfeld NJ, Heymans MW, Naylor G, Kramer SE. Predictors of entering a hearing aid evaluation period: a prospective study in older hearing-help seekers. Trends Hear. 2017;21:2331216517744915. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  8. Rosenberg M. Conceiving the Self. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books; 1986.
  9. Shinn JB. Temporal processing tests. In Musiek FE, Chermak GD, eds. Handbook of Central Auditory Disorder. San Diego, California: Plural Publishing; 2014. p.157-200.
  10. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002;41(1):30-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Kelly-Campbell RJ, McMillan A. The relationship between hearing aid self-efficacy and hearing aid satisfaction. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(4):529-35. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  12. Convery E, Keidser G, Hickson L, Meyer C. The relationship between hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Am J Audiol. 2019;28(2):274-84. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Knudsen LV, Oberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE. Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif. 2010;14(3):127-54. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  14. Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. Refinement and psychometric evaluation of the Attitudes Toward Loss of Hearing Questionnaire. Ear Hear. 1996;17(6):505-19. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  15. Thorup N, Santurette S, Jørgensen S, Kjærbøl E, Dau T, Friis M. Auditory profiling and hearing-aid satisfaction in hearing-aid candidates. Dan Med J. 2016;63(10):A5275. [PubMed] 
  16. Kwak MY, Choi WR, Park JW, Hwang EJ, Ha YR, Chung JW, et al. Assessment of objective audiometry to predict subjective satisfaction in patients with hearing aids. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;13(2):141-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  17. Chang YS, Choi J, Moon IJ, Hong SH, Chung WH, Cho YS. Factors associated with self-reported outcome in adaptation of hearing aid. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136(9):905-11. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Mendel LL. Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. Am J Audiol. 2007;16(2):118-29. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  19. Dornhoffer JR, Meyer TA, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Assessment of hearing aid benefit using patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Audiol Neurootol. 2020;25(4):215-23. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  20. Wang X, Zheng Y, Li G, Lu J, Yin Y. Objective and subjective outcomes in patients with hearing aids: a cross-sectional, comparative, associational study. Audiol Neurootol. 2022;27(2):166-74. [Crossref]  [PubMed]