Hearing aid review appointments : attendance and effectiveness

Abstract

PURPOSE : This study aimed to (a) identify participant factors associated with Xappointment attendance, (b) investigate whether the completion of self-report survey identifying hearing aid-related problems affects HAR appointment attendance, and (c) investigate whether hearing aid problems and hearing aid management deficiencies are adequately addressed during HAR appointments.

METHOD : A prospective cohort study of adult hearing aid owners recruited from a single hearing clinic in Western Australia. Potential participants were invited to an annual HAR appointment via postal letter. The invitation included a paper-based self-report survey evaluating either (a) hearing aid problems, (b) hearing aid management skills, or (c) hearing aid outcomes, depending on which intervention/control group the potential participants were assigned to, and a reply paid addressed envelope. Two months later, potential participants were sent all three paper-based self-report surveys, irrespective of whether they had attended or not attended an HAR appointment.

RESULTS : (a) There was no significant difference in gender or source of funding for hearing services between HAR appointment attendees and nonattendees. HAR nonattendees lived a greater distance from their clinic and were younger than attendees. (b) Survey completion did not influence HAR appointment attendance rates. (c) A significant reduction in individuals' self-reported hearing aid problems was recorded following the attendance at the HAR appointment. No significant changes in hearing aid management skills or overall hearing aid outcomes were detected.

CONCLUSIONS : Long travel distances may be a barrier to attendance at review appointments. HAR appointments appear to be effective in improving hearing aid problems.

PURPOSE : This study aimed to (a) identify participant factors associated with hearing aid review (HAR) appointment attendance, (b) investigate whether the completion of self-report survey identifying hearing aid-related problems affects HAR appointment attendance, and (c) investigate whether hearing aid problems and hearing aid management deficiencies are adequately addressed during HAR appointments. METHOD : A prospective cohort study of adult hearing aid owners recruited from a single hearing clinic in Western Australia. Potential participants were invited to an annual HAR appointment via postal letter. The invitation included a paper-based self-report survey evaluating either (a) hearing aid problems, (b) hearing aid management skills, or (c) hearing aid outcomes, depending on which intervention/control group the potential participants were assigned to, and a reply paid addressed envelope. Two months later, potential participants were sent all three paper-based self-report surveys, irrespective of whether they had attended or not attended an HAR appointment. RESULTS : (a) There was no significant difference in gender or source of funding for hearing services between HAR appointment attendees and nonattendees. HAR nonattendees lived a greater distance from their clinic and were younger than attendees. (b) Survey completion did not influence HAR appointment attendance rates. (c) A significant reduction in individuals' self-reported hearing aid problems was recorded following the attendance at the HAR appointment. No significant changes in hearing aid management skills or overall hearing aid outcomes were detected. CONCLUSIONS : Long travel distances may be a barrier to attendance at review appointments. HAR appointments appear to be effective in improving hearing aid problems.