Comparative Analyses between Receiver in the Canal Hearing Aids and Closed Fit Hearing Aids: Preliminary Study.
10.3342/kjorl-hns.2015.58.4.249
- Author:
Da Jung JUNG
1
;
Kyu Yup LEE
;
Sang Heun LEE
;
Jeong Hun JANG
Author Information
1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. jangjh@knu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Consumer satisfaction;
Hearing aid;
Hearing loss
- MeSH:
Bone Conduction;
Compliance;
Consumer Satisfaction;
Hearing Aids*;
Hearing Loss;
Humans;
Intention;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Speech Perception
- From:Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2015;58(4):249-256
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the degree of satisfaction of the patients, hearing loss type and severity, and satisfactory and unsatisfactory factors between closed fit hearing aid (HA) and receiver in the canal (RIC) HA. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Seventeen patients with hearing loss participated in this study. All patients had used closed fit HAs prior to the study, with the ratio of those using in the canal (ITC) types and completely in the canal (CIC) types being 4:13. After a 2-week trial period of using RIC HAs, patients were evaluated for their satisfaction of using RIC HAs by filling out the questionnaire on the Korean version International Outcome Inventory for hearing aids (K-IOI-HA). RESULTS: The visual analogue scale (VAS) score of closed fit HA was higher in the RIC-HAdissatisfied group (< or =5, n=8) than in the RIC-HA-satisfied group (>5, n=9). The K-IOI-HA score of closed fit HA was higher than that of RIC HA in the RIC-HA-dissatisfied group and similar in the RIC-HA-satisfied group. Audiologically, air conduction and bone conduction thresholds at 500 Hz were lower in the RIC-HA-satisfied group than in the RIC-HA-dissatisfied group. In addition, the VAS score of RIC HA was negatively correlated with air and bone conduction thresholds and the K-IOI-HA score of RIC HA was positively correlated with speech discrimination score, whereas the VAS and K-IOI-HA scores of closed fit HA were not. CONCLUSION: Among the patients with closed fit HA, some patients indicated RIC HA to be suitable and showed intention to change. The HA should be prescribed firstly based on audiologic criteria, which could increase the subjective satisfaction and prevent poor compliance due to incongruity.
