Premium versus entry-level hearing aids: using group concept mapping to investigate the drivers of preference

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the difference in outcome measures and drivers of user preference between premium and entry-level hearing aids using group concept mapping.

Design

A single-blind crossover trial was conducted. Aided behavioural outcomes measured were loudness rating, speech/consonant recognition, and speech quality. Preference between hearing aids was measured with a 7-point Likert scale. Group concept mapping was utilised to investigate preference results. Participants generated statements based on what influenced their preferences. These were sorted into categories with underlying themes. Participants rated each statement on a 5-point Likert scale of importance.

Study sample

Twenty-three adult participants (mean: 62.4 years; range: 24–78) with mild to moderately severe bilateral SNHL (PTA_{500–4000 Hz} > 20 dB HL).

Results

A total of 83 unique statements and nine distinct clusters, with underlying themes driving preference, were generated. Clusters that differed significantly in importance between entry-level and premium hearing aid choosers were: Having access to smartphone application-based user-controlled settings, the ability to stream calls and music, and convenience features such as accessory compatibility.

Conclusion

This study has identified non-signal-processing factors which significantly influenced preference for a premium hearing aid over an entry-level hearing aid, indicating the importance of these features as drivers of user preference.

Keywords:

• Hearing aids
• hearing aid technology levels
• concept mapping
• hearing aid user preference
• drivers of preference
• non-signal-processing features
• hearing aid product profile

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants of this study for their time. We would also like to thank Steve Beaulac and Nicole Willis for their support on this project, Danielle Glista for her invaluable advice on concept mapping, and Matthias Froehlich and H. Gustav Mueller for discussions on study aims.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Funding to support this research was partially provided by Signia, and by the Ontario Research Fund under grant RE08-072.