A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Benefits of a Multimedia Educational Program for First-Time Hearing Aid Users

Melanie Ferguson, Marian Brandreth, William Brassington, Paul Leighton, Heather Wharrad, Melanie Ferguson, Marian Brandreth, William Brassington, Paul Leighton, Heather Wharrad

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were to (1) develop a series of short interactive videos (or reusable learning objects [RLOs]) covering a broad range of practical and psychosocial issues relevant to the auditory rehabilitation for first-time hearing aid users; (2) establish the accessibility, take-up, acceptability and adherence of the RLOs; and (3) assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the RLOs.

Design: The study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial with two arms. The intervention group (RLO+, n = 103) received the RLOs plus standard clinical service including hearing aid(s) and counseling, and the waitlist control group (RLO-, n = 100) received standard clinical service only. The effectiveness of the RLOs was assessed 6-weeks posthearing aid fitting. Seven RLOs (total duration 1 hr) were developed using a participatory, community of practice approach involving hearing aid users and audiologists. RLOs included video clips, illustrations, animations, photos, sounds and testimonials, and all were subtitled. RLOs were delivered through DVD for TV (50.6%) and PC (15.2%), or via the internet (32.9%).

Results: RLO take-up was 78%. Adherence overall was at least 67%, and 97% in those who attended the 6-week follow-up. Half the participants watched the RLOs two or more times, suggesting self-management of their hearing loss, hearing aids, and communication. The RLOs were rated as highly useful and the majority of participants agreed the RLOs were enjoyable, improved their confidence and were preferable to written information. Postfitting, there was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome measure, overall hearing aid use. However, there was significantly greater hearing aid use in the RLO+ group for suboptimal users. Furthermore, the RLO+ group had significantly better knowledge of practical and psychosocial issues, and significantly better practical hearing aid skills than the RLO- group.

Conclusions: The RLOs were shown to be beneficial to first-time hearing aid users across a range of quantitative and qualitative measures. This study provides evidence to suggest that the RLOs may provide valuable learning and educational support for first-time hearing aid users and could be used to supplement clinical rehabilitation practice.

Conflict of interest statement

The Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham will receive a small proportion of any royalties from the sale of the RLOs in DVD format. This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Program (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0909-20294). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
GHABP hearing aid use in the suboptimal users (GHABP use

Fig. 2.

HACK score. Mean ± 95%…

Fig. 2.

HACK score. Mean ± 95% confidence interval for the intervention (RLO+) and control…

Fig. 2.
HACK score. Mean ± 95% confidence interval for the intervention (RLO+) and control (RLO−) groups. HACK indicates Hearing Aid and Communication Knowledge; RLO, reusable learning object.

Fig. 3.

Wordcloud to show the top…

Fig. 3.

Wordcloud to show the top five words to describe the reusable learning objects.…

Fig. 3.
Wordcloud to show the top five words to describe the reusable learning objects. The larger the font size, the more frequently the word was selected.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
HACK score. Mean ± 95% confidence interval for the intervention (RLO+) and control (RLO−) groups. HACK indicates Hearing Aid and Communication Knowledge; RLO, reusable learning object.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Wordcloud to show the top five words to describe the reusable learning objects. The larger the font size, the more frequently the word was selected.

References

    1. Action on Hearing Loss. Hear Me Out: Audiology Services in Scotland - Services Provided, Patients’ Experience and Needs. London: RNID; 2011.
    1. Ainsworth S., Loizou A. The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cog Sci. 2003;27:669–681.
    1. Albrecht U. V., Behrends M., Schmeer R., et al. Usage of multilingual mobile translation applications in clinical settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2013;1:e4.
    1. Armero O. E. Effects of denied hearing loss on the significant other. Hear J. 2001;54:44–46.
    1. Barker F., Mackenzie E., Elliott L., et al. Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. Cochrane Library. 2014;7
    1. Benedek J., Milner T. Proceedings of the Usability Professional Association Conference. Orlando, FL: 2002. Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting.
    1. Bertoli S., Staehelin K., Zemp E., et al. Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants. Int J Audiol. 2009;48:183–195.
    1. Beynon G. J., Thornton F. L., Poole C. A randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of a communication course for first time hearing aid users. Br J Audiol. 1997;31:345–351.
    1. Biggs J. B., Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. 2003. New edition.
    1. Block M. Hearing Aid Repair Rates. 2001. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from .
    1. Boothroyd A. Adult aural rehabilitation: What is it and does it work? Trends Amplif. 2007;11:63–71.
    1. Brandreth M., Leighton P., Wharrad H., et al. Development of interactive video tutorials to educate first-time hearing aid users: A participatory approach. Int J Audiol. 2013;52:273.
    1. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
    1. British Society of Audiology. Guidance on the use of real ear measurement to verify the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids. 2008. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from .
    1. British Society of Audiology. Pure-tone air- and bone-conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking. 2011. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from .
    1. Brooke R. E., Isherwood S., Herbert N. C., et al. Hearing aid instruction booklets: Employing usability testing to determine effectiveness. Am J Audiol. 2012;21:206–214.
    1. Caposecco A., Hickson L., Meyer C. Hearing aid user guides: Suitability for older adults. Int J Audiol. 2014;53(Suppl 1):S43–S51.
    1. CETL. 2009. CETL toolkit. Retrieved October 21, 2014, from .
    1. Chisolm T. H., Abrams H. B., McArdle R. Short- and long-term outcomes of adult audiological rehabilitation. Ear Hear. 2004;25:464–477.
    1. Chisolm T. H., Johnson C. E., Danhauer J. L., et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: Final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force On the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18:151–183.
    1. Cox R. M., Alexander G. C. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear. 1999;20:306–320.
    1. Cox R. M., Alexander G. C. The international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA): Psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002;41:30–35.
    1. Davis A., Smith P., Ferguson M., et al. Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: A study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–294.
    1. Deloitte. 2014. The smartphone generation gap: over 55? There’s no app for that. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from .
    1. Desjardins J. L., Doherty K. A. Do experienced hearing aid users know how to use their hearing AIDS correctly? Am J Audiol. 2009;18:69–76.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
    1. Edelson P. J., Pittman V. V. 2001. E-learning in the United States: New directions and opportunities for university continuing education. Retrieved September 7, 2002, from .
    1. El-Molla F., Smith Z., Henshaw H., et al. British Academy of Audiology Conference Proceedings, Manchester. 2012. Retention of rehabilitation information by first-time hearing aid users with and without interactive patient information.
    1. Euroqual. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Ferguson M. Tackling information overload and retention – interactive multimedia videos for first-time hearing aid users. ENT Audiol News. 2014;23:102–104.
    1. Ferguson M. A., Henshaw H., Clark D. P., et al. Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2014;35:e110–e121.
    1. Ferguson M., Brandreth M., Brassington W., et al. Information retention and overload in first-time hearing aid users: An interactive multimedia educational solution. Am J Audiol. 2015;24:329–332.
    1. Ferguson M. A., Leighton P. E., Brandreth M., et al. Development of evidence-based interactive videos for first-time hearing aid users. Int J Audiol. 2012;51:262–263.
    1. Friedman L. M., Furberg C., DeMets D. L. Fundamentals of clinical trials. New York: Springer; 2010.
    1. Friemel T. N. The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media Soc. 2014:1–19.
    1. Gatehouse S. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: Derivation and validation of client-centred outcome measures for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10:80–103.
    1. Goggins S., Day J. Pilot study: Efficacy of recalling adult hearing-aid users for reassessment after three years within a publicly-funded audiology service. Int J Audiol. 2009;48:204–210.
    1. Granberg S., Dahlström J., Möller C., et al. The ICF core sets for hearing loss–researcher perspective. Part I: Systematic review of outcome measures identified in audiological research. Int J Audiol. 2014;53:65–76.
    1. Greengross S. Commission on Hearing Loss: Final Report. In International longevity centre-UK (Ed.) London: 2014. pp. 1–38.
    1. Henshaw H., Clark D., Kang S., et al. Computer skills and internet use in adults aged 50–74 years: Influence of hearing difficulties. J Med Internet Res. 2012;4:111–114.
    1. Hibbard J. H., Mahoney E. R., Stockard J., et al. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918–1930.
    1. Hickson L., Worrall L., Scarinci N. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the active communication education program for older people with hearing impairment. Ear Hear. 2007;28:212–230.
    1. Jacobson N. S., Follette W. C., Revenstorf D. Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Beh Ther. 1984;15:336–352.
    1. Kessels R. P. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003;96:219–222.
    1. Kochkin S. Marke Trak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer”: The consumers’ perspective. Hear J. 2000;53:34–41.
    1. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market. Hear Rev. 2009;16:12–31.
    1. Koper E. J. R. Combining Re-usable Learning Resources and Services to Pedagogical Purposeful Units of Learning. London, UK: Kogan-Page; 2003.
    1. Kramer S. E., Allessie G. H., Dondorp A. W., et al. A home education program for older adults with hearing impairment and their significant others: A randomized trial evaluating short- and long-term effects. Int J Audiol. 2005;44:255–264.
    1. Lin F. R., Metter E. J., O’Brien R. J., et al. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol. 2011;68:214–220.
    1. Linssen A. M., Joore M. A., Theunissen E. J., et al. The effects and costs of a hearing screening and rehabilitation program in residential care homes for the elderly in the Netherlands1. Am J Audiol. 2013;22:186–189.
    1. Lowe C. Under Pressure: NHS Audiology Across the UK. London: AoHL; 2015.
    1. Lundberg M., Andersson G., Lunner T. A randomized, controlled trial of the short-term effects of complementing an educational program for hearing aid users with telephone consultations. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22:654–662.
    1. McCormack A., Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them? Int J Audiol. 2013;52:360–368.
    1. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from
    1. Meyer C., Hickson L., Khan A., et al. What is important for hearing aid satisfaction? Application of the expectancy-disconfirmation model. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25:644–655.
    1. Mosen D. M., Schmittdiel J., Hibbard J., et al. Is patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions? J Ambulatory Care Management. 2007;30:21–29.
    1. Murray E., Davis H., Tai S., et al. A randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. Br Med J. 2001;232:1529–1530.
    1. NHS Scotland. Quality standards for adult hearing rehabilitation. 2009. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from .
    1. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from .
    1. O’Keefe M., O’Regan L., Cashman D. Association for Learning Technology conference, “Rethinking the Digital Divide.”. UK: University of Leeds; 2008. Supporting the development of communities of practice: Informal versus formal communities.
    1. Perez E., Edmonds B. A. A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: A descriptive summary of measurement tools. PLoS One. 2012;7:e31831.
    1. Reese J. L., Hnath-Chisolm T. Recognition of hearing aid orientation content by first-time users. Am J Audiol. 2005;14:94–104.
    1. Rocks T., Ferguson M. British Academy of Audiology Conference Proceedings. Manchester: 2013. Does training care-staff using interactive videos improve their hearing aid practical skills, understanding and perception of the importance of hearing aids?
    1. Scarinci N., Worrall L., Hickson L. The effect of hearing impairment in older people on the spouse. Int J Audiol. 2008;47:141–151.
    1. Scarinci N., Worrall L., Hickson L. Factors associated with third-party disability in spouses of older people with hearing impairment. Ear Hear. 2012;33:698–708.
    1. Schulz K. F., Altman D. G., Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Br Med J. 2010:340.
    1. Sedgwick P. Clinical significance versus statistical significance. Br Med J. 2014:348.
    1. Statista. 2015. Percentage of households with DVD players in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2002 to 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2015, from
    1. Stark P., Hickson L. Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int J Audiol. 2004;43:390–398.
    1. Swanepoel D. W., Hall J. W., III. A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemed J E-Health. 2010;16:181–200.
    1. Sweetow R., Sabes J. H. The communication confidence profile: A vital, but overlooked subjective domain. Hear J. 2010;63:17–24.
    1. Thorén E., Svensson M., Törnqvist A., et al. Rehabilitative online education versus internet discussion group for hearing aid users: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22:274–285.
    1. Thorén E. S., Oberg M., Wänström G., et al. Internet access and use in adults with hearing loss. J Med Int Res. 2013;15:e91.
    1. Thorén E. S., Oberg M., Wänström G., et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of online rehabilitative intervention for adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2014;53:452–461.
    1. UNECE (United Economic Commission for Europe) Statistical Database. 2015. Percentage of population using internet by age, sex, variable, country and year. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from .
    1. Ventry I. M., Weinstein B. E. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: A new tool. Ear Hear. 1982;3:128–134.
    1. Vuorialho A., Karinen P., Sorri M. Counselling of hearing aid users is highly cost-effective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263:988–995.
    1. Whitmer W. M., Howell P., Akeroyd M. A. Proposed norms for the Glasgow hearing-aid benefit profile (Ghabp) questionnaire. Int J Audiol. 2014;53:345–351.
    1. Windle R. J., Wharrad H. Reusable learning objects in health care education interprofessional e-learning and collaborative work: Practices and technologies. IGI-Global; 2010.
    1. Windle R. J., McCormick D., Dandrea J., et al. The characteristics of reusable learning objects that enhance learning: A case-study in health-science education. Br J Educ Technol. 2010;42:811, 823.
    1. Wong L. L., Hickson L., McPherson B. Hearing aid satisfaction: What does research from the past 20 years say? Trends Amplif. 2003;7:117–161.
    1. Zhang J. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cog Sci. 1997;21:179–217.
    1. Zhang D., Zhou L., Briggs R. O., et al. Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Inf Man. 2006;43:15–27.
    1. Zigmond A. S., Snaith R. P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–370.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj