Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Older adults with hearing loss struggle to communicate with care providers and experience higher mortality rates when hospitalized (Genther et al., 2015), even after controlling for age and comorbidities. Personal hearing amplifiers (PHAs), (e.g., Pocketalkers™), can improve communication with older patients.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify research gaps and summarize findings on the clinical use of PHAs with patients with hearing loss. After refining search terms relating to hearing loss and PHAs, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC (Proquest), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry. We identified articles published in English between 1980 and 2022 that reported empirical outcomes relating to PHA use in clinical settings. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles. We then organized data into an evidence map, and a narrative review summarizing outcomes.
RESULTS: From 4234 initially identified titles and abstracts, 12 met our criteria as full texts. These included three surveys on clinicians\' awareness and use of PHAs, one evaluation of the acoustic output of a PHA, and eight interventions wherein PHAs were provided to patients with hearing loss. These papers used 10 different terms for PHAs and largely did not cite one another. Results showed high levels of satisfaction with PHAs, and consistently improved speech understanding. Despite this, care providers used devices inconsistently, with challenges around provider awareness, and device maintenance and location tracking.
CONCLUSIONS: PHAs have a consistent positive effect on patients\' ability to understand their care providers despite hearing loss. Barriers and facilitators to their use in clinical settings should be further explored.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify research gaps and summarize findings on the clinical use of PHAs with patients with hearing loss. After refining search terms relating to hearing loss and PHAs, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC (Proquest), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry. We identified articles published in English between 1980 and 2022 that reported empirical outcomes relating to PHA use in clinical settings. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles. We then organized data into an evidence map, and a narrative review summarizing outcomes.
RESULTS: From 4234 initially identified titles and abstracts, 12 met our criteria as full texts. These included three surveys on clinicians\' awareness and use of PHAs, one evaluation of the acoustic output of a PHA, and eight interventions wherein PHAs were provided to patients with hearing loss. These papers used 10 different terms for PHAs and largely did not cite one another. Results showed high levels of satisfaction with PHAs, and consistently improved speech understanding. Despite this, care providers used devices inconsistently, with challenges around provider awareness, and device maintenance and location tracking.
CONCLUSIONS: PHAs have a consistent positive effect on patients\' ability to understand their care providers despite hearing loss. Barriers and facilitators to their use in clinical settings should be further explored.
摘要：
背景：听力损失的老年人难以与护理提供者沟通，住院时死亡率较高（Gentheretal.,2015),即使在控制了年龄和合并症之后.个人听力放大器（PHA），(例如，Pocketalkers™)，可以改善与老年患者的沟通。
方法：我们进行了范围审查，以确定研究空白，并总结了在听力损失患者中使用PHA的临床发现。在完善与听力损失和PHA相关的搜索术语后，我们搜索了MEDLINE,Embase,PsycINFO,科克伦图书馆,CINAHL完成,WebofScience核心合集,ERIC（Proquest），PubMed,ClinicalTrials.gov,国际临床试验注册平台，和国际标准随机对照试验编号登记处。我们确定了1980年至2022年之间以英语发表的文章，这些文章报道了与临床环境中PHA使用相关的经验结果。两名审阅者独立地从文章中提取数据。然后我们将数据整理成证据图，以及总结结果的叙述性回顾。
结果：从4234个最初确定的标题和摘要，12符合我们作为全文的标准。其中包括三项关于临床医生对PHA的认识和使用情况的调查，对PHA的声学输出的一种评估，和八种干预措施，其中为听力损失患者提供了PHA。这些论文对PHA使用了10个不同的术语，并且在很大程度上没有相互引用。结果显示对PHA的满意度很高，并不断提高言语理解。尽管如此,护理提供者不一致地使用设备，围绕提供商意识的挑战，以及设备维护和位置跟踪。
结论：PHAs对患者了解其护理提供者的能力具有一致的积极影响，尽管有听力损失。应进一步探讨其在临床环境中使用的障碍和促进因素。
方法：我们进行了范围审查，以确定研究空白，并总结了在听力损失患者中使用PHA的临床发现。在完善与听力损失和PHA相关的搜索术语后，我们搜索了MEDLINE,Embase,PsycINFO,科克伦图书馆,CINAHL完成,WebofScience核心合集,ERIC（Proquest），PubMed,ClinicalTrials.gov,国际临床试验注册平台，和国际标准随机对照试验编号登记处。我们确定了1980年至2022年之间以英语发表的文章，这些文章报道了与临床环境中PHA使用相关的经验结果。两名审阅者独立地从文章中提取数据。然后我们将数据整理成证据图，以及总结结果的叙述性回顾。
结果：从4234个最初确定的标题和摘要，12符合我们作为全文的标准。其中包括三项关于临床医生对PHA的认识和使用情况的调查，对PHA的声学输出的一种评估，和八种干预措施，其中为听力损失患者提供了PHA。这些论文对PHA使用了10个不同的术语，并且在很大程度上没有相互引用。结果显示对PHA的满意度很高，并不断提高言语理解。尽管如此,护理提供者不一致地使用设备，围绕提供商意识的挑战，以及设备维护和位置跟踪。
结论：PHAs对患者了解其护理提供者的能力具有一致的积极影响，尽管有听力损失。应进一步探讨其在临床环境中使用的障碍和促进因素。
