PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15004647

Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.

Larry E Humes
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Following a brief tutorial on the application of factor analysis to hearing aid outcome measures, three studies of hearing aid outcome measures in elderly adults are presented and analyzed. Two of the studies were completed at Indiana University (IU-1 and IU-2), and one was a collaborative multisite study by the Veterans Administration and the National Institute of Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD/VA). IU-1 measured hearing aid outcome in 173 elderly wearers of single-channel, linear, in-the-ear hearing aids with output-limiting compression, whereas IU-2 obtained the same extensive set of outcome measures from 53 elderly wearers of two-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression, in-the-canal hearing aids. In the NIDCD/VA study, 333 to 338 participants wore three single-channel circuits in succession, with each circuit housed within an in-the-ear shell. The three circuits included in that study and in this analysis were: (1) linear with peak clipping, (2) linear with output-limiting compression, and (3) single-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression. Evaluation of the many outcome measures completed in each study using principal components factor analysis revealed that from three (both IU studies) to five (NIDCD/VA study) principal components captured the individual differences in hearing aid outcome. This was independent of hearing aid type (in-the-ear or in-the-canal) and circuitry. Subsequent multiple regression analyses of individual differences in performance along each dimension of hearing aid outcome revealed that these individual differences could be accounted for reasonably well by various prefit variables for some dimensions of outcome, but not others. In general, measures of speech recognition performance were well accounted for by prefit measures, with the best predictors being hearing loss, cognitive performance, and age. Measures of hearing aid usage were less well accounted for by prefit measures, with the most accurate predictor of current hearing aid use being prior hearing aid use. The outcome dimension accounted for most poorly was that associated with hearing aid satisfaction, with subjective measures of aided sound quality being the best predictor of performance along this dimension of hearing aid outcome. Additional multicenter, large-scale studies are needed to develop more complete models of hearing aid outcome and to identify the variables that influence various aspects of hearing aid outcome. It is only through this additional research that it will be possible to optimize outcome for hearing aid wearers.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Larry E Humes. 2003. Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.. https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380300700202

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗