Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:26:27.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of life improvement for bone-anchored hearing aid users and their partners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

M L McNeil ,
M Gulliver ,
D P Morris  and
M Bance
M L McNeil
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M Gulliver
Affiliation:
Nova Scotia Hearing and Speech Centres, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
D P Morris
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M Bance*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Manohar Bance, Room 3184, 3rd Floor Dickson Building, VG site, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 1278 Tower Road, Halifax, NS B3H 2Y9, Canada Fax: +1 902 473 4345 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Bone-anchored hearing aid recipients experience well documented improvements in their audiometric performance and quality of life. While hearing aid recipients may understate their functional improvement, their partners may be more aware of such improvement. We sought to investigate patients' partners' perceptions of functional improvement following bone-anchored hearing aid fitting.

Methods:

Surveys were sent to 153 patients who had received a bone-anchored hearing aid through the Nova Scotia bone-anchored hearing aid programme. The validated survey asked patients' partners to give their subjective impression of the bone-anchored hearing aid recipient's functional status.

Results and conclusions:

Surveys were completed by 90 patients (58.8 per cent), of whom 72 reported having a partner. Partners reported a significant improvement in hearing (p ≤ 0.0001). Partners reported improvement in 87.0 per cent of functional scenarios, no change in 12.6 per cent, and a decline in 0.4 per cent. These findings demonstrate a significant improvement in the emotional and social effects of hearing impairment, as perceived by bone-anchored hearing aid recipients' partners.

Keywords

Hearing LossHearing AidOsseo-IntegrationOutcome AssessmentsSpouses
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 125 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 554 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the Second International Symposium on Bone Conduction Hearing – Craniofacial Osseointegration, 11–13 June 2009, Goteborg, Sweden, and at the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 63rd Annual Meeting, 10–12 May 2009, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

References

1Sánchez-Camón, I, Lassaletta, L, Castro, A, Gavilán, J. Quality of life of patients with BAHA [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2007;58:316–20Google Scholar
2Arunachalam, PS, Kilby, D, Meikle, D, Davison, T, Johnson, IJM. Bone-anchored hearing aid quality of life assessed by Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2001;111:1260–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Gillett, D, Fairley, JW, Chandrashaker, TS, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42Google Scholar
4Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(suppl 28):7–14Google Scholar
5Hol, MK, Spath, MA, Krabbe, PF, van der Pouw, CT, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW et al. The bone anchored hearing aid: quality of life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6McLarnon, CM, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 2004;114:942–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Burrell, SP, Cooper, HR, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(suppl 28):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Bance, M, Abel, SM, Papsin, BC, Wade, P, Vendramini, J. A comparison of the audiometric performance of bone anchored hearing aids and air conduction hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:912–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Wazen, JJ, Spitzer, J, Ghossaini, SN, Kacker, A, Zschommler, A. Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2001;111:955–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Stark, P, Hickson, L. Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int J Audiol 2004;43:390–8Google Scholar
11Brooks, DN, Hallam, RS, Mellor, PA. The effects on significant others of providing a hearing aid to the hearing-impaired partner. Br J Audiol 2001;35:165–71Google Scholar
12Kennedy, V, Stephens, D, Fitzmaurice, P. The impact of cochlear implants from the perspective of significant others of adult cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:607–14Google Scholar
13Newman, CW, Weinstein, BE, Jacobson, GP, Hug, GA. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 1990;11:430–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Newman, CW, Weinstein, BE, Jacobson, GP, Hug, GA. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear Hear 1991;12:355–7Google Scholar
15Newman, CW, Weinstein, BE. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly using two administration approaches. Ear Hear 1989;10:190–1Google Scholar
16Weinstein, BE, Ventry, IM. Audiometric correlates of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. J Speech Hear Disord 1983;48:379–84Google Scholar
17Lichtenstein, M, Bess, F, Logan, S. Validation of screening tools for identifying hearing impaired elderly in primary care. JAMA 1988;59:2875–8Google Scholar