4.5 Article

Satisfaction and compliance of adult patients using hearing aid and evaluation of factors affecting them

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 273, Issue 11, Pages 3723-3732

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4046-x

Keywords

Satisfaction; Hearing aid user; Self-report benefit; Subjective outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of this study are to reveal patient compliance and satisfaction in hearing aid-prescribed adult population and to determine the relevant clinical factors. The study was designed retrospectively, and those patients who have been using hearing aid for at least 6 months were invited for evaluation. Demographical data, hearing aid type (digital vs analog), general satisfaction, and daily usage time were asked. Then, the Hearing Aid Satisfaction Questionnaire (HASQ) was applied to all patients which included visual analog scale (VAS)-based 10 questions about the effects of hearing aid on social communication, efficiency, cosmetics, life quality and cost. Totally 400 patients were included in the study. The HASQ was confirmed to be highly reliable by Kaiser Meyer Olkin and Bartlett Sphericity tests after exclusion of aid-cost question. There was a negative correlation between age and satisfaction, and a positive correlation between hearing aid usage time (years) and satisfaction (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between mean HASQ scores regarding gender, employment status, hearing aid type and the site of hearing aid wearing. HASQ scores were significantly worse in pure sensorineural loss type, lower educational status, shorter daily usage time, but better in higher pure tone threshold levels (p < 0.05). Age, time of hearing aid usage daily, type of hearing impairment, the threshold of hearing and education were the factors affecting satisfaction. Regular daily usage of hearing aid should be encouraged in patients, since by this way aid usage and satisfaction may be improved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available