Randomized trial of amplification strategies

Bevan Yueh, Pamela E. Souza, Jennifer A. McDowell, Margaret Patricia Collins, Carl F. Loovis, Susan C. Hedrick, Scott D. Ramsey, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

67 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. Patients: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as "service connected," which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. Intervention: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairsissued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ("conventional") or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ("programmable"). Main Outcome Measures: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). Results: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1197-1204
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume127
Issue number10
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Veterans
Hearing Aids
Self-Help Devices
Hearing
Equipment and Supplies
Quality of Life
Hearing Loss
Audiology
Aptitude
Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Randomized Controlled Trials
Communication
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Technology
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Yueh, B., Souza, P. E., McDowell, J. A., Collins, M. P., Loovis, C. F., Hedrick, S. C., ... Deyo, R. R. (2001). Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 127(10), 1197-1204.

Randomized trial of amplification strategies. / Yueh, Bevan; Souza, Pamela E.; McDowell, Jennifer A.; Collins, Margaret Patricia; Loovis, Carl F.; Hedrick, Susan C.; Ramsey, Scott D.; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 127, No. 10, 2001, p. 1197-1204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yueh, B, Souza, PE, McDowell, JA, Collins, MP, Loovis, CF, Hedrick, SC, Ramsey, SD & Deyo, RR 2001, 'Randomized trial of amplification strategies', Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 1197-1204.
Yueh B, Souza PE, McDowell JA, Collins MP, Loovis CF, Hedrick SC et al. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2001;127(10):1197-1204.
Yueh, Bevan ; Souza, Pamela E. ; McDowell, Jennifer A. ; Collins, Margaret Patricia ; Loovis, Carl F. ; Hedrick, Susan C. ; Ramsey, Scott D. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick). / Randomized trial of amplification strategies. In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2001 ; Vol. 127, No. 10. pp. 1197-1204.
@article{23458deafb214573938c1de2e1e200f9,
title = "Randomized trial of amplification strategies",
abstract = "Background: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. Patients: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as {"}service connected,{"} which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. Intervention: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairsissued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ({"}conventional{"}) or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ({"}programmable{"}). Main Outcome Measures: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). Results: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P",
author = "Bevan Yueh and Souza, {Pamela E.} and McDowell, {Jennifer A.} and Collins, {Margaret Patricia} and Loovis, {Carl F.} and Hedrick, {Susan C.} and Ramsey, {Scott D.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "1197--1204",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized trial of amplification strategies

AU - Yueh, Bevan

AU - Souza, Pamela E.

AU - McDowell, Jennifer A.

AU - Collins, Margaret Patricia

AU - Loovis, Carl F.

AU - Hedrick, Susan C.

AU - Ramsey, Scott D.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Background: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. Patients: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as "service connected," which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. Intervention: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairsissued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ("conventional") or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ("programmable"). Main Outcome Measures: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). Results: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P

AB - Background: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. Patients: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as "service connected," which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. Intervention: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairsissued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ("conventional") or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ("programmable"). Main Outcome Measures: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). Results: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034780212&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034780212&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 127

SP - 1197

EP - 1204

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 10

ER -