Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Hearing Aid Users (hearing + aid_user)
Selected AbstractsWillingness to pay for a hearing aid: comparing the payment scale and open-ended questionJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2009Janneke P. C. Grutters MSc Abstract Rationale & objectives, Different question formats elicit different willingness-to-pay (WTP) results, but there is no consensus on which method elicits the most valid WTP. In spite of the methodological controversies, WTP is a potentially valuable tool in health economics to value health services. Our general objective was to provide additional evidence on the validity of two WTP elicitation formats: the open-ended question and the payment scale. Methods, We elicited WTP for a hearing aid among hearing aid users (n = 108), using both a payment scale and an open-ended question. We compared the results from both formats. We tested criterion validity by comparing both formats with the actual out-of-pocket payment. Construct validity was tested by examining whether WTP was consistent with positive income elasticity. Results, The WTP results elicited with the payment scale and open-ended question were not statistically significantly different. Both formats showed good criterion validity, although the open-ended question showed a stronger association with the actual out-of-pocket payment. The open-ended format showed better construct validity, as it was influenced by family income. Conclusion, The results of the present study showed that the open-ended question was more valid than the payment scale question. We, therefore, recommend that in future WTP studies on hearing aids the open-ended question is used to directly elicit WTP values. The same recommendation may apply to other studies where respondents are familiar with costs or payments for the intervention under evaluation. [source] Audiological Application Criteria for Implantable Hearing Aid Devices: A Clinical Experience at the Nijmegen ORL Clinic,THE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 9 2008Veronique J. O. Verhaegen MD Abstract Objectives/Hypothesis: To define audiological application criteria for different implantable hearing aid devices. Study Design: Retrospective study. Methods: Comparisons were made between aided speech recognition scores obtained at conversational level (65 dB) in patients with the Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) (n = 22), the Otologics middle ear transducer (MET) (n = 10), conventional hearing aids (behind-the-ears) (n = 47), and cochlear implants (CIs) (n = 123). Results: In relation to hearing loss, only for mild hearing loss, speech recognition scores with VSB were comparable to that with conventional hearing aids. In the Otologics MET users, speech recognition scores were comparable with those of the conventional hearing aid users until a mean hearing loss of about 75 dB HL. At a sensorineural hearing loss of about 65 dB HL or more, the Otologics MET users have better speech recognition scores than the VSB users. For comparison with CI users, we followed a more conservative approach. In 90% of the users of a CI, speech recognition scores were better than those in: 1) patients with a conventional hearing aid and a mean hearing loss of about 95 dB HL or worse; 2) patients with an Otologics MET and a mean hearing loss of 85 dB HL or worse. Conclusions: Patients fitted with a VSB or an Otologics MET middle ear implant do not demonstrate better speech recognition scores than patients fitted with today's conventional hearing aids. Results might even been worse. However, the VSB and Otologics MET are a good option in patients with moderate (VSB) to severe (Otologics MET) sensorineural hearing loss and external otitis. [source] ORIGINAL ARTICLE: The bone-anchored hearing aid in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness: experience with 58 patientsCLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, Issue 4 2010T.P.C. Martin Clin. Otolaryngol. 2010, 35, 284,290 Objectives:, To assess the efficacy of the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) in the rehabilitation of single-sided deafness (SSD). Study design:, Retrospective case,control series review. Setting:, Tertiary referral unit. Patients:, Fifty-eight consecutive patients that had a bone-anchored hearing aid for single-sided deafness completed outcome questionnaires, building upon earlier audiological assessment of 19 patients. Single-sided deafness controls (n = 49) were mainly acoustic neuroma patients. Main outcome measurements: speech discrimination testing in directional noise, speech and spatial qualities of hearing questionnaire and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI). Results:, The mean follow-up time was 28.4 months. Five (13%) of the bone-anchored hearing aid patients were non-users because of lack of benefit. The audiometric testing confirmed that when noise was on the bone-anchored hearing aid side speech perception was reduced but benefited when noise was on the side of the hearing ear. There was no difference between the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scores in bone-anchored hearing aid users and controls. In particular there was no difference in the spatial subscores. In the bone-anchored hearing aid users the median Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was 11. If the non-users are included then 13 (22%) patients had no or detrimental (negative) Benefit scores. No or negative benefit scores were more frequent in those deaf for <10 years. In open-field questions, patients felt the bone-anchored hearing aid was most useful in small groups or in ,one-to-one' conversation. Conclusions:, Bone-anchored hearing aid rehabilitation for single-sided deafness is less successful than for other indications, reflected here by relatively low median Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores. There was also no significant difference between controls and bone-anchored hearing aid users in the Speech and Spatial Qualities of Hearing Questionnaire. Patients with a longer duration of deafness report greater subjective benefit than those more recently deafened, perhaps due to differing expectations. [source] | ||||||||||