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
. 2024 Mar 1;12(5):578.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare12050578.

Examining the Use and Benefits of Low-/Mild-Gain Hearing Aids in Service Members with Normal Hearing Thresholds and Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties

Alyssa J Davidson  1 , Gregory M Ellis  1   2 , Kimberly Jenkins  1 , Melissa Kokx-Ryan  3 , Douglas S Brungart  1
Affiliations

Examining the Use and Benefits of Low-/Mild-Gain Hearing Aids in Service Members with Normal Hearing Thresholds and Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties

Alyssa J Davidson et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Low- (or mild-) gain hearing aids (LGHAs) are increasingly considered for individuals with normal peripheral hearing but significant self-reported hearing difficulties (SHDs). This study assesses the benefits of LGHAs as a management option for individuals with normal hearing thresholds (NHTs) and SHDs, comparing LGHA use and benefit to individuals with non-significant hearing difficulties (NHDs) and those with peripheral hearing loss. Questionnaires addressing hearing aid usage, benefit, hearing difficulties, and tinnitus were administered to 186 individuals who self-identified as hearing aid users in a sample of 6652 service members who were receiving their annual hearing tests. Participants were divided into SHD and NHD groups based on the normative cutoff of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey-Hearing Subscale (THS-H), and into hearing impairment (HI) and NHT based on their audiometric air-conduction thresholds. Individuals with SHDs and NHTs reported higher LGHA usage and benefit than individuals with NHDs and NHTs. Comparable use and benefit were noted between groups with SHDs regardless of peripheral hearing loss status. The findings support LGHAs as a suitable management option for individuals with NHTs and SHDs, as indicated by hearing aid use and benefit. Quantifying the level of perceived auditory processing deficits (i.e., SHDs), notably with the THS-H, enhances sensitivity in identifying those who may benefit the most from this treatment option.

Keywords: auditory processing; correction of hearing impairment; hearing loss; low-gain hearing aids; management; mild-gain hearing aids; self-reported hearing difficulties.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean hearing thresholds for better and worse ears across groups. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Shape represents hearing difficulty group (squares: non-significant hearing difficulties, NHD; circles: significant hearing difficulties, SHD). Fill represents hearing status group (filled: normal hearing thresholds, NHT; open: hearing impaired thresholds, HI). Color represents ear (black: better ear; grey: worse ear). Note that within both the NHT and HI groups, SHD and NHD listeners have similar thresholds.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of service members by group who self-reported wearing their hearing aids full time, intermittently, or no longer.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of service members by group who self-reported being prescribed hearing aids for tinnitus, understanding speech in quiet, understanding speech in noise, or for another unspecified reason.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average daily hearing aid usage across groups and listening situations. The average use across all situations for each group is displayed to the right of the vertical line. Standard error (SE) bars are depicted for 2 × SE.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Average daily hearing aid usage across listening situations for those who reported tinnitus as the main and only reason for being prescribed hearing aids (+T) and those who did not report tinnitus as the only reason (−T). Groups are further divided: (a) participants with significant hearing difficulties (SHD) in the first panel; (b) participants with non-significant hearing difficulties (NHD) in the second panel.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Average hearing aid benefit across groups and listening conditions. The average benefit across all situations for each group is displayed to the right of the vertical line. Standard error (SE) bars are depicted for 2 × SE.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Average hearing aid benefit across listening situations for those who reported tinnitus as the main and only reason for being prescribed hearing aids (+T) and those who did not report tinnitus as the only reason (−T). Groups are further divided: (a) participants with significant hearing difficulties in the first panel (SHD); (b) participants with non-significant hearing difficulties (NHD) in the second panel.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Average global hearing aid benefit across all listening situations for each group (Global = Avg Benefit × Avg Use). Standard error (SE) bars are depicted for 2 × SE.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lasky E.Z., Katz J. Central Auditory Processing Disorders: Problems of Speech, Language, and Learning. University Park Press; University Park, PA, USA: 1983.
    1. Stark R.E., Bernstein L.E. Evaluating central auditory processing in children. Top. Lang. Disord. 1984;4:57–70. doi: 10.1097/00011363-198406000-00008. - DOI
    1. Jerger J., Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2000;11:467–474. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1748136. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Musiek F.E., Baran J., Bellis T.J., Cherman G.D., Hall J., III, Keith R., Medwetsky L., West K.L., Young M., Nagle S. Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines 2010. [(accessed on 29 January 2024)]. pp. 1–51. Available online: https://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-20....
    1. Iliadou V.V., Ptok M., Grech H., Pedersen E.R., Brechmann A., Deggouj N., Kiese-Himmel C., Sliwiska-Kowalska M., Nickisch A., Demanez L., et al. A European persepctive on auditory processing disorder-current knowledge and future research focus. Front. Neurol. 2017;8:622. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00622. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources