AJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Audiology Vol.7 115-128 October 1998. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(1998/021)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newman, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Sandridge, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Newman, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by Sandridge, S. A.

Benefit From, Satisfaction With, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Different Hearing Aid Technologies

Craig W. Newman 1 and Sharon A. Sandridge 1

1 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH

Newmanc{at}cesmtp.ccf.org

Clinical decision-making has become more complex as newer, more costly, hearing aid (HA) technologies become available. The expanding array of more expensive HAs demands that clinical researchers continue to justify the value of these instruments relative to the substantial increase in cost to both the provider and consumer.

In the present report, 25 current conventional HA users with adult onset of sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with: (a) a one-channel linear HA; (b) a two-channel, nonlinear HA; and (c) a seven-band, two-channel digital signal processing (DSP) HA. All instruments were mini behind-the-ear units with identifying information removed from the cases. Subjects wore each HA for at least a 1-month period.

A set of laboratory (Speech Perception in Noise [SPIN] test; audibility index calculated from real-ear measurements) and self-report (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults; Knowles Hearing Aid Satisfaction Survey; preference ratings) outcome measures were used to evaluate the benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of each test HA. As expected, there were statistically significant differences between unaided and aided conditions across HAs.

Although the DSP instrument yielded significantly higher word recognition scores on the SPIN test, no differences were observed among the test HAs for the standardized self-report measures. In contrast, however, more than 75% of the subjects preferred the "higher end" instruments. Yet, 33% of the subjects changed their preference for the "higher end" instruments after being informed of costs. A cost-effectiveness model for evaluating the relationship between HA retail purchase price and improvements in performance/benefit is presented.

Key Words: hearing aid, benefit, satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, digital signal processing

Submitted on June 5, 1998
Accepted on September 21, 1998




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
L. L. N. Wong, L. Hickson, and B. McPherson
Hearing Aid Satisfaction: What Does Research from the Past 20 Years Say?
Trends in Amplification, December 1, 2003; 7(4): 117 - 161.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
J. Hough
There Is No Such Thing as an "Average" Patient: Hearing Aid Technology Should Be Determined on a Case-by-Case Basis
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, November 1, 2000; 126(11): 1399 - 1399.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.