Teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations for adults: single blinded crossover randomised control trial and cohort studies

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and quality of standard face-to-face and teleaudiology hearing aid fitting follow-up consultations and blended services for adult hearing aid users.

Design and Study sample

Fifty-six participants were randomly allocated to two equal groups, with equal numbers of new and experienced users. One standard and one teleaudiology follow-up consultation were delivered by an audiologist, the latter assisted by a facilitator. The order was reversed for the second group. Outcome measurement tools were applied to assess aspects of participants’ communication, fitting (physical, sensorial), quality of life, and service. Cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes were analysed.

Results

Most participants presented with moderate, sloping, and symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The duration of teleaudiology (42.96 ± 2.73 min) was equivalent to face-to-face consultations (41.25 ± 2.61 min). All modes of service delivery significantly improved outcomes for communication, fitting, and quality of life (p > 0.05). Satisfaction for both consultation modes was high, although significantly greater with standard consultations. The mode and order of delivery of the consultations did not influence the outcomes.

Conclusion

Teleaudiology hearing aid follow-up consultations can deliver significant improvements, and do not differ from standard consultations. Blended services also deliver significant improvements. Satisfaction can be negatively impacted by technical or human-related issues.

Keywords:

• Telehealth
• audiology
• hearing aids
• rehabilitation
• intervention
• health service delivery

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of a PhD thesis of the first author (Tao 2020), available through the library of The University of Western Australia. We would like to thank all the participants and families involved in the study, the volunteers who assisted as facilitators (Kayla Harvey, Erin Kosovic, Shelley Li, and Stella Kristanto) and the Lions Hearing Clinic’s staff at their Joondalup, Mount Lawley and Winthrop clinics. Christopher Brennan-Jones is supported by an NHMRC Research Fellowship #1142897.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The terminology 'real-world clinical practice' used in this manuscript refers to the clinical practice protocols delivered in the consultations independent on the mode of their delivery (e.g. use of a facilitator or not, or whether it was face-to-face or remote). This terminology also refers to almost every other aspect of the consultation, from booking and managing appointments, software and equipment used, to conduct of the session.

2 Initial fitting issues were identified in the first follow-up consultations. The new fitting issues were identified in the second follow-up consultations. The total fitting issues were those initial issues that were reassessed and new issues identified in the second follow-up consultations. All the comparisons between consultations for these type of issues were made against the initial issues identified in the first consultation (statistical results are shown in Supplementary material S.8).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by CAPES foundation, Process number BEX 13410/13-0, Science without borders program, Brazil (for Karina FM Tao), Ear Science Institute Australia, Perth, Australia, and Telethon Kids Institute (Ear Health), Perth, Australia.