Abstract
Objective Hearing rehabilitation attempts to compensate for auditory dysfunction, reduce hearing difficulties and minimize participation restrictions that can lead to social isolation. However, there is no systematic approach to assess the quality of the intervention at an individual level that might help to evaluate the need of further hearing rehabilitation in the hearing care clinic.
Design A data-driven analysis on subjective data reflecting hearing disabilities and handicap was chosen to explore “benefit patterns” as a result of rehabilitation in different audiometric groups. The method was based on: 1) Dimensionality reduction; 2) Stratification; 3) Archetypal analysis; 4) Clustering; and 5) Item importance estimation.
Study sample 572 hearing-aid users completed questionnaires of hearing difficulties (speech, spatial and qualities hearing scale; SSQ) and hearing handicap (HHQ).
Results The data-driven approach revealed four benefit profiles that were different for each audiometric group. The groups with low degree of high-frequency hearing loss (HLHF) showed a priority for rehabilitating hearing handicaps, whereas the groups with HLHF > 50 dB HL showed a priority for improvements in speech understanding.
Conclusions The patterns of benefit and the stratification approach might guide the clinical intervention strategy and improve the efficacy and quality of service in the hearing care clinic.
Competing Interest Statement
This work was supported by Innovation Fund Denmark Grand Solutions 5164-00011B (Better hEAring Rehabilitation project) Oticon, GN Hearing, WSAudiology and other partners (Aalborg University, University of Southern Denmark, the Technical University of Denmark, Force, Aalborg, Odense and Copenhagen University Hospitals). WW was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MR/S003576/1]; and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. No other financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Innovation Fund Denmark Grand Solutions 5164-00011B (Better hEAring Rehabilitation project) Oticon, GN Hearing, WSAudiology and other partners (Aalborg University, University of Southern Denmark, the Technical University of Denmark, Force, Aalborg, Odense and Copenhagen University Hospitals). The funding and collaboration of all partners are sincerely acknowledged. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. WW was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MR/S003576/1]; and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The article has been peer-reviewed. Based on the reviewer comments and suggestions, the results and discussion parts have been substantially modified. Furthermore, the method contains more details about the analyzed database.
Data Availability
The data used in the present study is only available under request.
