Purchasing Hearing Aids; Online “Pre-Programmed” Fit versus Audiology-Driven Fit

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the objective and subjective differences between two sets of hearing aids; online ‘pre-programmed’ set versus an audiology-driven set. Introduction: Hearing aids are conventionally fit by audiologists over a number of appointments using compression based prescriptive procedures, verification and validation tools. On average, only 20% of hearing impaired people who may benefit from treatment will actually seek help, often waiting more than 10 years after the initial diagnosis to be fitted with their first set of hearing aids (Davis, Smith, Ferguson, Stephens, & Gianopoulos, 2007). As the internet and online resources continue to grow, there is greater and easier access to products online. In 2012, 89.5% of New Zealand’s population used the internet (International Telecommunications Union (Geneva), June 2013), half of which make purchases online (Chapman-Smith, 2013). Consumers are constantly seeking more cost-efficient products to get more bang for their buck, and hearing aids purchased from an audiologist are associated with a larger price value as there is a service, not only goods. The research conducted explores the differences between a pre-programmed ‘universal fit’ hearing aids compared to an Audiologist-Driven professional fitting, and how the costs of each may lead to the outcomes. Methods: Twenty adults with a mild to moderately-severe hearing loss participated in a study to test the difference between ‘pre-programmed’ hearing aids that had been purchased online and hearing aids from a top hearing aid manufacturer that had been fit using audiological standards. The trial consisted of a full audiological assessment, audiology-driven hearing aid fitting and blinded measurement using the QuickSIN™ (speech intelligibility in noise), verification through real ear measures (REMs) and sound quality assessments for both sets of hearing aids. Results: Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed statistically significant differences between the Audiology-Driven and Online Aid fittings for the amount of gain provided across frequencies (2, 4 and 6 kHz). QuickSIN™ testing showed an advantage to the Audiology- Driven fitting, resulting in significantly higher scores. Subjective Sound Quality Assessments did not show a significant difference between the fittings. Conclusions: Audiology-Driven hearing aid fittings appear to provide significant aided benefits compared to the Online Aid fittings, although there was no significant difference between the subjective sound quality assessments in different listening scenarios.