Study of user preference for two hearing aid fitting methods
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users?
IRAS ID
281638
Contact name
Kevin Munro
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
The University of Manchester
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
osf.io/4hrzp, Pre-registered in OSF
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 6 months, 2 days
Research summary
Summary of Research
Around 1 in 6 of the UK adult population is affected by hearing loss. The National Health Service (NHS) fits hearing aids to about 355,000 new adults annually. The hearing aid fitting appointment takes about 45 minutes, of which 10 to 15 minutes are devoted to programming hearing aids using a system called real ear measurements (REM). This system is used to measure the hearing aid’s output while it is in the wearer’s ear via a soft-probe tube microphone. It is known that using REM improves matching to amplification prescription in comparison to other fitting approaches, such as fitting hearing aids using the hearing aid software approximations (i.e., the initial-fit method). This is why clinical guidelines recommend using REM when fitting hearing aids. However, this takes up valuable clinical time and it remains unclear if it results in a better outcome for the patient.
Therefore, we will conduct a prospective, counterbalanced, double-blinded, within-subject design study to compare fitting hearing aids using REM vs the initial-fit method. We will recruit participants from Withington community hospital and Trafford general hospital to:
1- Measure how often a participant prefers the sound quality of one hearing aid fitting approach over the other using a preference diary.
2- Invite participants to complete a questionnaire in order for us to understand why they prefer the sound quality of one fitting approach over the other.
If we find no difference between fitting hearing aid with or without REM, this would simplify the way that hearing aids are fit and delivered. That is, hearing aids can be fitted using less time and fewer resources. The results of this study have major implications for the emerging category of direct-to-consumer hearing aids. This study is funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (funder reference: IS-BRC-1215-20007).Summary of Results
Around 1 in 6 of the UK adult population is affected by hearing loss. The National Health Service (NHS) fits hearing aids to around 355,000 new adults annually. The hearing aid fitting appointment takes about 45 minutes, of which 10–15 minutes are devoted to programming hearing aids using a system called real ear measurements (REM). This system measures the hearing aid’s output while it is in the wearer’s ear. Using REM improves the match to the amplification prescription in comparison to other fitting approaches, such as hearing aid software approximations (i.e., the initial fitting method). This is why clinical guidelines recommend using REM when fitting hearing aids. However, this takes up valuable clinical time, and it was unclear if it results in a better outcome for the patient. We conducted a study to compare fitting hearing aids using REM with the initial fitting method. We recruited 58 participants and measured how often participants preferred the sound quality of one hearing aid fitting approach over the other using a preference diary. We also collected the participants’ reasons for their preference to understand why they preferred the sound quality of one fitting approach over the other. The findings revealed that there is no statistically significant advantage for the REM method compared to the initial fit, as measured using the participant’s listening preferences. These results suggest that hearing aids could be fitted, with reasonable accuracy, using less time and fewer resources, which otherwise could be spent educating and counselling patients on how to make the most of their hearing aids.REC name
North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
20/NW/0283
Date of REC Opinion
29 Jun 2020
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion