Exploring Factors That Contribute to the Success of Rehabilitation With Hearing Aids.

Hearing aid choice followed a selection protocol and other factors such as price, not a controlled comparison, so differences between modalities may reflect who received each device rather than the device features themselves. The analysis used only subjects who completed the trial and kept the hearing aid, so people who abandoned or returned devices were not included. The hearing aid settings and fitting quality were not recorded, so it is unknown whether advanced features were actually used or correctly adjusted. AVAB post-fitting scores were close to norms for people with normal hearing, so the questionnaire may not have been sensitive enough to detect small differences between hearing aid features. The devices were those available in the Netherlands in 2018, so current hearing aid technology may behave differently. In-the-ear aids and a very small modality group were excluded, so the result applies to behind-the-ear and receiver-in-canal fittings. Data came from routine care over different collection periods and dispenser data were anonymized, so individual-level comparison was limited.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The article is labelled as supported by non-U.S. government research.

Do not conclude that advanced hearing aids are clinically pointless because the study found only a small modality effect. The comparison was observational, the devices were chosen through a selection protocol, fitting quality and actual feature settings were not recorded, and unsuccessful fittings were excluded, so the result does not prove that premium and basic devices are equivalent for every patient.