CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494Hearing Loss and RehabilitationEar Surgery and Otitis MediaHearing Impairment and Communication

Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: A review of the literature.

Open access
Vestergaard Knudsen, Line, Öberg, Marie, Nielsen, Claus, Naylor, Graham, Kramer, Sophia E.·2010·Trends in Amplification
DOI 10.1177/1084713810385712PMC PMC4111466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This descriptive summary of the literature provides an overview of the available studies (published between January 1980 and January 2009) on correlates of help-seeking behavior for hearing loss, hearing-aid uptake, hearing-aid use, and satisfaction with the device. METHODS: Publications were identified by structured searches in Pubmed and Cinahl and by inspecting the reference lists of relevant articles. The articles covered different stages that a person with hearing impairment may go through: prior to hearing aid fitting, the period covering the fitting and the period post hearing aid fitting. Inclusion of articles occurred according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted by two independent researchers. Thirty-nine papers were included that identified 31 factors examined in relation to the four outcome measures. These covered personal factors (e.g., source of motivation, expectation, attitude), demographic factors (e.g., age, gender) and external factors (e.g., cost, counseling). Only two studies covered the actual fitting process. There was only one factor positively affecting all four outcome variables. This was self-reported hearing disability. The vast majority of studies showed no relationship of age and gender with any of the outcome domains. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Whereas research of the last 28 years yielded valuable information regarding relevant and irrelevant factors in hearing aid health care, there are still many relevant issues that have never been investigated in controlled studies. These are discussed.

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 · 10.1177/1084713810385712

Cites

96 of 96 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?

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: 16

  1. Antonovsky A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  2. Carson A. J., Pichora-Fuller M. K. (1997). Health promotion and audiology: The community-clinic link. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitation Audiology, 30, 29–51 [Google Scholar]
  3. Crown S., Crisp A. H. (1979). Manual of the Crown-Crisp Experiential Index. London: Hodder & Stoughton [Google Scholar]
  4. Engelund G. (2006). “Time for hearing”—Recognising process for the individual: A grounded theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Denmark [Google Scholar]
  5. Forster S. E., Tomlin A. J. (1988, May). Hearing aid usage in Queensland. Paper presented at the Audiological Society of Australia Conference, Perth, Australia.
  6. Garstecki D. C. (1994). Perception of (psychological) control and competence: A basis for behavioral differences in management of hearing loss by aging adults. Chicago: Retirement Research Foundation [Google Scholar]
  7. Gatehouse S. (1993). Hearing aid evaluation: Limitation of present procedures and future requirements [Monograph supplement]. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 1, 50–57 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hetu R., Getty L., Philibert L., Desilets F., Noble W., Stephens D. (1994). Development of a clinical tool for the measurement of the severity of hearing disabilities and handicaps. Journal of Speech-Lang Pathology and Audiology, 18, 82–95 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hosford-Dunn H., Halpern J. (2001). Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice II: Predictive validity of fitting variables. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 15–36 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Humes L. E., Wilson D. L., Humes A. C. (2003). Examinations of differences between successful and unsuccessful elderly hearing aid candidates matched for age, hearing loss and gender. International Journal of Audiology, 42, 432–441 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kochkin S. (1998). MarkeTrak IV: Correlates of hearing aid purchase intent. Hearing Journal, 51(1), 30–38 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lazenby B. B., Logan S. A., Ahlstrom J. B., Bess F. H. (1986). Self-assessment questionnaire for the elderly: Hearing aid dispensary use. Hearing Journal, 39, 18–21 [Google Scholar]
  13. Meis M., Gabriel B. (2006). Barriers in hearing instrument provision—From a customer perspective. In Proceedings of the 51th International Congress of Hearing Aid Acousticians, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
  14. Schow R. L., Nerbonne M. A. (1977). Assessment of hearing handicap by nursing home residents and staff. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 10, 2–12 [Google Scholar]
  15. Seyfried D. A. (1990). Use of a communication self-report inventory to measure hearing aid counseling effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA [Google Scholar]
  16. Weinstein B. (2000). Geriatric audiology. New York: Thieme [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vestergaard Knudsen, L., Öberg, M., Nielsen, C., Naylor, G., & Kramer, S. E.
Affiliations
  • Oticon Research Centre, Eriksholm, Snekkersten, Denmark,
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Oticon Research Centre, Eriksholm, Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Trends in Amplification
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
127-154
ISSN
1084-7138 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/1084713810385712
PMC
PMC4111466
OpenAlex
W2117945314
Cited by
494
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Trends in Amplification (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Oticon Fonden
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
help-seeking, hearing loss, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use, hearing aid satisfaction, hearing aid fitting, motivation, expectations, attitudes, cost, counseling, demographic factors
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Auditory Threshold, Counseling, Demography, Hearing Aids, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Motivation, Patient Compliance, Correction of Hearing Impairment, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Hearing Loss

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