Abstract:
Introduction: Hearing loss affects a large proportion of people in Aotearoa/NZ, but not everyone seeks to address it. This may be due to cost, travel, and/or stigma. Untreated hearing loss can have negative effects on relationships, mental and emotional health. The current method of providing hearing aids in clinics is not accessible for everyone in Aotearoa. Accessibility needs to be addressed to reduce the societal burden of untreated hearing loss. This study investigates different methods of providing hearing aids and aims to explore whether consumers would be interested in these methods, thus establishing the potential uptake of proposed delivery methods.
Method: This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative survey. Data was collected from 120 participants who voluntarily completed an anonymous online survey that assessed their perceptions of alternative hearing aid delivery methods, such as teleaudiology, over the counter hearing aids and traditional audiology. We were primarily interested in whether the methods were perceived to be appropriate/easy to use, accessible, the participant's willingness to pay values for each method and their willingness to use each method. The Spearman Correlation Coefficient test was used to identify significant relationships between variables, along with Binary Logistic Regression.
Results: Most participants wanted access to/were willing to try traditional audiology, followed by teleaudiology. The fewest participants wanted access to/were willing to try over the counter, user-programmable hearing devices. Participants believed all three hearing aid delivery methods would be neither too easy nor too difficult to use. There were several additional features and settings that participants thought would make each
iii
method easier to use. On average, the study participants somewhat agreed with the idea that teleaudiology and over the counter, user-programmable hearing devices could improve access to hearing health care. Participants were willing to pay more for traditional audiology than over the counter, user-programmable hearing devices and the least for teleaudiology.
Conclusion: The findings of this study have revealed several benefits of using alternative hearing aid delivery methods, as well as several concerns that consumers have. The benefits highlighted in this study can be used to advocate for alternative forms of hearing aid delivery to improve access to hearing health care across Aotearoa. The concerns highlighted in this study should be addressed and could be used for further research in this area in order to develop suitable products and services that will have a high chance of successful uptake by consumers. The findings of this study have implications for hearing aid delivery services, highlighting the aspects of importance for patients for their hearing care (audiologist involvement and various sources of help/information) and their willingness to try and pay for newer fitting methods that could lead to these new methods coming into the hearing aid market in New Zealand. The findings are of relevance to policymakers, audiologists, hearing care providers and researchers.