Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions?: a systematic review

Ibrahim Almufarrij; Harvey Dillon; Kevin J. Munro

doi:10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925

Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? a systematic review

Ibrahim Almufarrij^*, Harvey Dillon, Kevin J. Munro

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Linguistics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

108 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.

DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.

RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	500-511
Number of pages	12
Journal	International Journal of Audiology
Volume	62
Issue number	6
Early online date	9 May 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925
Publication status	Published - Jun 2023

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2022. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

benefit
direct-to-consumer
hearing aids
over-the-counter
real-ear probe-microphone measures

Access to Document

10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 2.08 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{3dc6034cbda54a30b19d028172cb0671,

title = "Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions?: a systematic review",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.",

keywords = "benefit, direct-to-consumer, hearing aids, over-the-counter, real-ear probe-microphone measures",

author = "Ibrahim Almufarrij and Harvey Dillon and Munro, {Kevin J.}",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2022. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2023",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925",

language = "English",

volume = "62",

pages = "500--511",

journal = "International Journal of Audiology",

issn = "1499-2027",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions?

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Almufarrij, Ibrahim

AU - Dillon, Harvey

AU - Munro, Kevin J.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2022. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2023/6

Y1 - 2023/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria.RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low.CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

KW - benefit

KW - direct-to-consumer

KW - hearing aids

KW - over-the-counter

KW - real-ear probe-microphone measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130109857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925

DO - 10.1080/14992027.2022.2064925

M3 - Review article

C2 - 35531751

SN - 1499-2027

VL - 62

SP - 500

EP - 511

JO - International Journal of Audiology

JF - International Journal of Audiology

IS - 6

ER -