Is a hybrid of online and face-to-face services feasible for audiological rehabilitation post COVID-19? Findings from three public health patients.

Only three participants were analysed; 26 were initially identified, five were eligible after screening, and two did not arrive for appointments. The study had no control group and no randomisation, so changes cannot be compared with usual care or another condition. The paper states that inferential statistics would not have been valid with this sample size, so the results are descriptive feasibility observations. Participants wore hearing aids and received online training, reminders, and in-person assessments together, so the effect of any single component cannot be separated. All participants were women aged 35 to 55 years, English-speaking, and had internet-capable devices, so findings may not apply to older adults, other languages, or people without device access. The study was done at one public hospital where patients usually receive one hearing aid even with bilateral hearing loss. Costs included an American online product and were influenced by the dollar to rand exchange rate. Clinical benefit was based on the paper's reported scores and self-report, not a controlled efficacy analysis.

The supplied text does not report funding sources or author conflict-of-interest declarations.

Do not read the 84.82% compliance and APHAB improvements as proof that online auditory training works. Only three women were studied, they used hearing aids and received reminders and assessments, and there was no control group.