Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 19;27(3S):474-481.
doi: 10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0019.

An Application of the Medical Research Council's Guidelines for Evaluating Complex Interventions: A Usability Study Assessing Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults With Hearing Loss

David W Maidment  1   2 , Melanie Ferguson  1   2   3
Affiliations

An Application of the Medical Research Council's Guidelines for Evaluating Complex Interventions: A Usability Study Assessing Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults With Hearing Loss

David W Maidment et al. Am J Audiol. .

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide an example of the Medical Research Council's guidelines for evaluating complex health care interventions in the context of smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss.

Method: Twenty existing hearing aid users trialed 1 of the following smartphone-connected listening devices: made-for-smartphone hearing aids, a personal sound amplification product, and a smartphone "hearing aid" application used with either wireless or wired earphones. Following 2 weeks of use in their everyday lives, participants completed self-report outcome measures.

Results: Relative to conventional hearing aids, self-reported use, benefit, and satisfaction were higher, and residual disability was lower for made-for-smartphone hearing aids. The converse was found for the other smartphone-connected listening devices trialed. Similarly, overall usability was judged to be "above average" for the made-for-smartphone hearing aids, but "below average" for the remaining devices.

Conclusions: This developmental work, guided by the Medical Research Council's framework, lays the foundation for feasibility and pilot studies, leading to high-quality research assessing the effectiveness of smartphone-connected listening devices. This future evidence is necessary to guide health care commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults living with hearing loss.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Boxplots for each Glasgow Hearing Aid Difference Profile (GHADP; Gatehouse, 1999) subscale across both predefined and user-defined situations. A. Use for each smartphone-connected listening device (Part II) minus use for existing hearing aids (Part I); B. Residual disability for each smartphone-connected listening device (Part II) minus residual disability for existing hearing aids (Part I); C. Difference in benefit between existing hearing aids and each smartphone-connected listening device; D. Difference in satisfaction between existing hearing aids and each smartphone-connected listening device. Higher percentage scores are indicative of greater use, residual disability (i.e., poorer), benefit, and satisfaction. PSAPs = personal sound amplification products.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Boxplots showing overall System Usability Scale (Brooke, 1996) scores for each smartphone-connected listening device group. Dashed line denotes a score of greater than or equal to 68, which is considered above average (Sauro, 2011). PSAPs = personal sound amplification products.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Amlani A. M., Taylor B., Levy C., & Robbins R. (2013). Utility of smartphone-based hearing aid applications as a substitute to traditional hearing aids. The Hearing Review, 20(13), 16–18.
    1. Barker A. B., Leighton P., & Ferguson M. A. (2017). Coping together with hearing loss: A qualitative meta-synthesis of the psychosocial experiences of people with hearing loss and their communication partners. International Journal of Audiology, 56(5), 297–305. - PubMed
    1. Bragi. (2015). The Dash. Retrieved from https://support.bragi.com/hc/en-us/categories/200470531-The-Dash
    1. Brooke J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In Jordan P. W., Thomas B., Weerdmeester B. A., & McClelland I. L. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
    1. Campbell M., Fitzpatrick R., Haines A., Kinmonth A. L., Sandercock P., Spiegelhalter D., & Tyrer P. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 321, 694–696. - PMC - PubMed