Lakshmi P Prasanna^1,3*, Dr Sreevidya Sherla^1,2 and Naveen Mone⁴

¹Helen Kellers Institute of Research and Rehabilitation Centre for the Disabled Children, Sricolony, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad, India
²Associate Professor & Head of the Audiology Department, India
³Associate Professor in Speech and Hearing, India
⁴Clinical Audiologist and Speech-Language Pathologist, Ankura Hospitals for Women and Children, Hyderabad, India

*Corresponding Author: Lakshmi P Prasanna, Associate Professor in Speech and Hearing, Helen Kellers Institute of Research and Rehabilitation Centre for the Disabled Children, Sricolony, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad, India.

Received: March 25, 2022; Published: April 12, 2022

Abstract

Objectives: Various objectives were sated to know the percentage of hearing aid (HA) usage time based on HA models, early years and current using time, before HA goes on, consistency of using HA’s and open-ended responses in specific challenges.

Design: HA usage questionnaire was used. This survey has 18 questions based on HA usage time in various locations and situations. 60 parents of children with both congenital and acquired hearing loss were asked to complete this survey. Participants were divided into two groups: one with 30 parents of congenital hearing impaired (HI) children and another with 30 parents of congenital hearing impaired (HI) children. They were all given a 5-point rating system to use to score the questions. Simple percentage analysis was one to know the benchmarks for the stipulated objectives.

Results: Starkey and Siemens HA’s were used frequently by both the groups. During early years it was observed that 33% of children in the congenital group (CG) wore for longer duration (i.e., 5 to 6 hrs) whereas in the acquired group (AG) wore for limited duration i.e., 3 to 4 hrs. Similarly, in the current use time 33.3% in CG wore for 10 hrs and 30% in AG wore for 9 to 10 hrs. Maximum time utilized by 30% of children in CG is 9 hrs whereas 33.3% of AG wore by 7 hrs respectively during week days and weekends. HA goes time was observed to be lesser (30 mins) in 63.3% of CG, whereas 63.3% of AG reported 1 hr. In general, neither group utilized HA’s in the day care setting; however, all of the children used HA’s during school hours. The consistency of HA use time by CG revealed that 76.6- 100% of children used “always” in various situations like transport, play school, meal time, play alone, book sharing, playground and public places. Similarly in AG noticed that 100% showed always during school time whereas in other situations it is observed to be 66.7-83.3% “often” used HA’s in public places, book sharing, meal time, play ground and transport. This indicates that CG, on the other hand, wore HAs in the majority of instances, whereas the AG’s use varied. This suggests that the CG has adapted to HA. Finally results indicated that most of the CG’s facing problems in loud events and child state categories whereas equipment issues and breaks in routine categories were reported by AG.

Conclusions: HA’s utilized by CG are longer durations and HA goes time are less when compared to the AG. According to the findings of the current study, congenital children are adapted to HA’s and are more accustomed to wear them at all situations. HA’s used less consistently by the AG than CG. Parents reported that the problems related to equipment issues are frequently seen. The findings of the study also provided as a benchmark for the hearing aid use time. Authors stated that the usage of hearing aid time and adapting HA is critical in a child’s overall development.

Keywords: Congenital and Acquired Hearing Loss; Hearing Impaired; Questionnaire; Hearing Aid Use Time; Benchmarks

References

1. Carney A E and Moeller M P. “Treatment efficacy: Hearing loss in children”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research1 (1998): S61-S84.
2. Bertoli S., et al. “Survey on hearing aid outcome in Switzerland: Associations with type of fitting (bilateral/unilateral), level of hearing aid signal processing, and hearing loss”. International Journal of Audiology 49 (2010): 333-346.
3. Blanchet C., et al. “Pure-tone threshold description of an elderly French screened population”. Otology and Neurotology 29 (2008): 432-440.
4. Ciletti L and Flamme GA. “Prevalence of hearing impairment by gender and audiometric configuration: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999 -2004) and the Keokuk County Rural Health Study (1994 -1998)”. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 19 (2008): 672-685.
5. Davis A., et al. “Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: A study of potential screening tests and models”. Health Technology Assessment 11 (2007): 1-294.
6. Hanratty B and Lawlor D A. “Effective management of the elderly hearing impaired—A review”. Journal of Public Health 22 (2000): 512-517.
7. Hickson L., et al. “Factors associated with hearing aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA”. International Journal of Audiology 49 (2010): 586-595.
8. Hultcrantz M., et al. “Estrogen and hearing: A summary of recent investigations”. Acta Otolaryngology 126 (2006): 10-14.
9. Houmøller SS., et al. “Prediction of successful hearing aid treatment in first-time and experienced hearing aid users: Using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids”. International Journal of Audiology 61 (2021): 119-129.
10. Johnson CE., et al. “Benefits from, satisfaction with, and self-efficacy for advanced digital hearing aids in users with mild sensorineural hearing loss”. Seminars in Hearing2 (2018): 158-171.
11. Kim S., et al. “Sex Differences in a Cross-Sectional Study of Age-related Hearing Loss in Korean”. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 3 (2010): 27-31.
12. Moeller M P., et al. “Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared to infants with normal hearing—Part I: Phonetic development”. Ear and Hearing 28 (2007a): 605-627.
13. Moeller M P., et al. “Consistency of Hearing Aid Use in Infants with Early-Identified Hearing Loss”. American Journal of Audiology1 (2009): 14.
14. Marnane V and Ching T Y. “Hearing aid and cochlear implant use in children with hearing loss at three years of age: Predictors of use and predictors of changes in use”. International Journal of Audiology 54 (2015): 544-551.
15. Strelnikov K., et al. “Improvement in speech-reading ability by auditory training: Evidence from gender differences in normally hearing, deaf and cochlear implanted subjects”. Neuropsychologia 47 (2009): 972-979.
16. Taubman LB., et al. “Accuracy of hearing aid use time as reported by experienced hearing aid wearers”. Ear and Hearing 4 (1999): 299-305.
17. Walker E A., et al. “Predictors of Hearing Aid Use Time in Children with Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss”. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 1 (2013): 73.
18. Walker E A., et al. “Trends and Predictors of Longitudinal Hearing Aid Use for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing”. Ear and Hearing 36 (2015): 38S-47S.
19. West R L and Smith SL. “Development of a hearing aid self-efficacy questionnaire”. International Journal of Audiology 12 (2007): 759-771.
20. Yoshinaga-Itano C., et al. “Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss”. Pediatrics5 (1998): 1161-1171.

Citation

Citation: Lakshmi Prasanna P, Srividya S and Naveen M. “Benchmarks for Predictors of Hearing Aid Use Time in Children’s with Congenital and Acquired Hearing Loss - A Comparative Study".Acta Scientific Otolaryngology 4.5 (2022): 11-21.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Lakshmi Prasanna P., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.