CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

Hyperacusis diagnosis and management in the United States: clinical audiology practice patterns

Open access
Jahn, Kelly N., Koach, Chelsea E.·2023·American Journal of Audiology
DOI 10.1044/2023_aja-23-00118PMC PMC11001428
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: Hyperacusis often leads to debilitating psychosocial consequences, but there is no standard protocol for its diagnosis and management in the United States. In this study, we surveyed U.S. clinical audiologists to understand their education and clinical practices surrounding the evaluation and treatment of hyperacusis. Method: An online survey was distributed to clinical audiologists across the United States. Survey responses were quantified using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis. Results: Hyperacusis definitions and clinical practice patterns varied widely across the 102 respondents. Respondents cited a lack of education and training as the primary barrier to effective audiological diagnosis and management of hyperacusis, with most respondents reporting ≤ 5 hr of hyperacusis education. Other primary barriers to effective audiological management of hyperacusis included time constraints, reimbursement, poor sensitivity and specificity of available diagnostic tools, and poor efficacy of available treatments and management strategies. Most respondents (82.5%) agreed that audiologists are the primary professionals who are responsible for implementing hyperacusis interventions. However, 63.3% of respondents reported that their clinic does not have a hyperacusis management protocol, and 80.0% routinely recommend treatment that is outside their scope of practice to implement (cognitive behavioral therapy). Conclusions: Clinical audiologists in the United States do not receive uniform education on hyperacusis, and they report multiple barriers to its evidence-based diagnosis and management. Effective hyperacusis management necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. The information obtained via this survey will pave the way toward the refinement of interprofessional education programs and the development of systematic, evidence-based clinical protocols for hyperacusis. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24431188

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2023_aja-23-00118

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The pain hyperacusis phenotype is not widely recognized by healthcare professionals.

    “they do not widely recognize the pain hyperacusis phenotype 6.”

    From Clinical phenotype and management of sound-induced pain: Insights from adults with pain hyperacusis (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

    In “Definition of Hyperacusis and Related Conditions” (page not provided), only 20 of 94 surveyed U.S. audiologists mentioned pain when defining hyperacusis, consistent with limited attention to pain in this group. The paper does not establish that healthcare professionals generally fail to recognize pain hyperacusis as a distinct phenotype; its Conclusions say knowledge among professionals outside audiology is unclear. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A recent study demonstrated inconsistent clinical practices and insufficient education regarding hyperacusis among audiologists.

    “This is consistent with a recent study that demonstrated inconsistent clinical practices and insufficient education regarding hyperacusis amongst audiologists6.”

    From Clinical phenotype and management of sound-induced pain: Insights from adults with pain hyperacusis (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]19. Fabijanska, A., Rogowski, M., Bartnik, G., & Skarzynski, H. (1999). Epidemiology of tinnitus and hyperacusis in Poland. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Tinnitus Seminar (pp. 569-572).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jahn, K. N., & Koach, C. E.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
ORCID
Jahn, Kelly N.
Venue
American Journal of Audiology
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2023-12-04
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
950-961
ISSN
  • 1059-0889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9137
DOI
10.1044/2023_aja-23-00118
PMC
PMC11001428
OpenAlex
W4388211815
Cited by
15
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Audiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (K01DC019647)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
hyperacusis, clinical practice patterns, barriers to treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy, multidisciplinary care, interprofessional education, clinical protocols, scope of practice
MeSH terms
Audiologists, Audiology, Educational Status, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Hyperacusis, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review