Participation in complex listening situations such as group conversations in noisy environments sets high demands on the auditory system and on cognitive processing. Reports of hearing-impaired people indicate that strenuous listening situations occurring throughout the day lead to feelings of fatigue at the end of the day. The aim of the present study was to develop a suitable test sequence to evoke and measure listening effort (LE) and listening-related fatigue (LRF), and, to evaluate the influence of hearing aid use on both dimensions in mild to moderately hearing-impaired participants. The chosen approach aims to reconstruct a representative acoustic day (Time Compressed Acoustic Day [TCAD]) by means of an eight-part hearing-test sequence with a total duration of approximately 2½ h. For this purpose, the hearing test sequence combined four different listening tasks with five different acoustic scenarios and was presented to the 20 test subjects using virtual acoustics in an open field measurement in aided and unaided conditions. Besides subjective ratings of LE and LRF, behavioral measures (response accuracy, reaction times), and an attention test (d2-R) were performed prior to and after the TCAD. Furthermore, stress hormones were evaluated by taking salivary samples. Subjective ratings of LRF increased throughout the test sequence. This effect was observed to be higher when testing unaided. In three of the eight listening tests, the aided condition led to significantly faster reaction times/response accuracies than in the unaided condition. In the d2-R test, an interaction in processing speed between time (pre- vs. post-TCAD) and provision (unaided vs. aided) was found suggesting an influence of hearing aid provision on LRF. A comparison of the averaged subjective ratings at the beginning and end of the TCAD shows a significant increase in LRF for both conditions. At the end of the TCAD, subjective fatigue was significantly lower when wearing hearing aids. The analysis of stress hormones did not reveal significant effects.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether limited English proficiency (LEP) is associated with likelihood of prior audiogram and hearing aid use among US adults with hearing loss.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study of four merged National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles included 12,636 adults with subjective (self-reported) or objective (audiometric) hearing loss. Subjects were classified as LEP if they completed the NHANES survey in a language other than English, or with the help of an interpreter. Likelihood of audiogram among participants with subjective and objective hearing loss, and likelihood of hearing aid use among participants with objective hearing loss were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression.
RESULTS: Individuals with LEP were less likely to have undergone audiogram among subjects with subjective (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.77), and objective (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.74) hearing loss. The association persisted for those with subjective hearing loss (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.86), and objective hearing loss (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.89) after adjusting for relevant covariates. Individuals with LEP were less likely to use hearing aids (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.93). This association disappeared (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.04) after adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: LEP is associated with lower utilization of hearing healthcare services. This may be due to the complex interplay of socioeconomic and language disparities, which may act as barriers to hearing healthcare utilization. Individuals with LEP should be prioritized when designing interventions to improve accessibility to hearing healthcare.
METHODS: Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to explore meaningful life changes due to hearing aid use in adult users.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional survey design was used with open-ended questions analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.
UNASSIGNED: US-based adult hearing aid users (n = 653) from the Hearing Tracker website community and Lexie Hearing database.
UNASSIGNED: Participants had a mean age of 65.4 years (13.6 SD), including 61.2% males, 38.3% females (0.5% other). Analysis of 2122 meaning units from responses identified two broad domains: \'meaningful benefits\' (n = 1709; 80.5%) and \'remaining difficulties\' (n = 413; 19.5%). The meaningful benefits domain included five categories (27 sub-categories): (a) psychosocial benefits, (b) improvements in hearing, (c) personal benefits, (d) hearing aid features and connectivity, and (e) situational benefits. Participants reported enhanced relationships and improved occupational functioning as key benefits. The remaining difficulties domain contained four categories (25 sub-categories): (a) hearing aid limitations, (b) hearing and communication issues, (c) situational difficulties, and (d) personal issues. Notable difficulties included hearing aid design issues and challenges in noisy environments.
UNASSIGNED: Hearing aid users reported diverse benefits and persistent challenges related to device use, illustrating the complexity of their lived experiences. These findings can inform empathetic, effective rehabilitation strategies and user-centric hearing aid technologies.

UNASSIGNED: Hearing aid use is lowest in 0-3-year-olds with hearing loss, placing spoken language development at risk. Existing interventions lack effectiveness and are typically not based on a theoretically driven, comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing infant hearing aid use. The present study is the first to address this gap in understanding.
UNASSIGNED: A 55-item online survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was completed by 56 parents of 0-3-year-old hearing aid users.
UNASSIGNED: Participants reported a wide range of barriers across TDF domains, which were associated with parent-reported hearing aid use and more pronounced in parents of lower hearing aid users. The most strongly reported domains across participants were \"emotion\" (e.g. feelings of worry when using hearing aids), \"beliefs about capabilities\" (e.g. belief in ability to use hearing aids consistently), and \"environmental context and resources\" (e.g. child removing hearing aids).
UNASSIGNED: Parents report a wider range of barriers to infant hearing aid use than existing investigations suggest and current interventions address. Interventions would benefit from: (i) targeting a wider range of TDF domains in their design; and (ii) implementing the present TDF survey to identify and target family-specific barriers to infant hearing aid use.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether immigrant status is associated with likelihood of audiogram and hearing aid use among US adults with hearing loss.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Nationally representative data from 2009 to 2010, 2011 to 2012, 2015 to 2016, and 2017 to 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study of 4 merged cycles of NHANES included 12,455 adults with subjective (self-reported) or objective (audiometric) hearing loss. Sequentially adjusted logistic regressions were used to assess the association of immigration status with likelihood of having undergone audiogram among those with objective and self-reported hearing loss, and with likelihood of hearing aid use among candidates with objective hearing loss.
RESULTS: Immigrants were less likely to have received an audiogram among subjects with subjective (odds ratio [OR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.87), and objective (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.81) hearing loss, compared to nonimmigrants. The association persisted for those with subjective (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96), and objective (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96) hearing loss after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, insurance, and hearing quality, but disappeared in both groups after adjusting for English proficiency. Immigrants were less likely to use hearing aids (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.93). However, this association disappeared (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04) in the adjusted model.
CONCLUSIONS: Immigrant status is a significant barrier to hearing health care and is associated with lower rates of audiometric testing and hearing aid use among individuals with hearing loss.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the associations between hearing status and hearing aid use and performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in older adults in a cross-sectional study in Norway.
UNASSIGNED: This study utilized data from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4, 2017-2019). Hearing thresholds at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz (or PTA4) in the better hearing ear were used to determine participants\' hearing status [normal hearing (PTA4 hearing threshold, ≤ 15 dB), or slight (PTA4, 16-25 dB), mild (PTA4, 26-40 dB), moderate (PTA4, 41-55 dB), or severe (PTA4, ≥ 56 dB) hearing loss]. Both standard scoring and alternate MoCA scoring for people with hearing loss (deleting MoCA items that rely on auditory function) were used in data analysis. The analysis was adjusted for the confounders age, sex, education, and health covariates.
UNASSIGNED: The pattern of results for the alternate scoring was similar to that for standard scoring. Compared with the normal-hearing group, only individuals with moderate or severe hearing loss performed worse in the MoCA. In addition, people with slight hearing loss performed better in the MoCA than those with moderate or severe hearing loss. Within the hearing loss group, hearing aid use was associated with better performance in the MoCA. No interaction was observed between hearing aid use and participants\' hearing status with performance on the MoCA test.
UNASSIGNED: While hearing loss was associated with poorer performance in the MoCA, hearing aid use was found to be associated with better performance in the MoCA. Future randomized control trials are needed to further examine the efficacy of hearing aid use on the MoCA performance. When compared with standard scoring, the alternate MoCA scoring had no effect on the pattern of results.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review examined the audiological and non-audiological factors that influence hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction in adults based on studies published during the last decade (2010 and 2023).
UNASSIGNED: Studies were identified by using PRISMA guidelines for systematic searches on five platforms (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost including CINAHL and Academic Search Complete). The National Institute of Health Quality assessment tool and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine tool were used for quality assessment and grading of level of evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-six articles were included in the review. A total of 101 significant factors influencing hearing aid use (n = 47), benefit (n = 17) and satisfaction (n = 37) were identified. Clear determinants of hearing aid use, benefit and satisfaction included hearing sensitivity, self-reported hearing difficulty, speech perception, attitude and beliefs. 34 cross-sectional studies in this review were graded level 4, 9 cohort studies rated level 3, and 3 randomised control trials rated level 2.
UNASSIGNED: Factors associated with hearing aid outcomes identified in the past decade support previous evidence. New factors like social networks and service-delivery models, have also been identified. These factors require further investigations through high quality studies to further strengthen existing evidence.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to explore the association between hearing loss severity, hearing aid use, and subjective memory complaints in a large cross-sectional study in Norway.
UNASSIGNED: Data were drawn from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4 Hearing, 2017-2019). The hearing threshold was defined as the pure-tone average of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz in the better ear. The participants were divided into five groups: normal hearing or slight/mild/moderate/severe hearing loss. Subjective self-reported short-term and long-term memory complaints were measured by the nine-item Meta-Memory Questionnaire (MMQ). The sample included 20,092 individuals (11,675 women, mean age 58.3 years) who completed both hearing and MMQ tasks. A multivariate analysis of variance (adjusted for covariates of age, sex, education, and health cofounders) was used to evaluate the association between hearing status and hearing aid use (in the hearing-impaired groups) and long-term and short-term subjective memory complaints.
UNASSIGNED: A multivariate analysis of variance, followed by univariate ANOVA and pairwise comparisons, showed that hearing loss was associated only with more long-term subjective memory complaints and not with short-term subjective memory complaints. In the hearing-impaired groups, the univariate main effect of hearing aid use was only observed for subjective long-term memory complaints and not for subjective short-term memory complaints. Similarly, the univariate interaction of hearing aid use and hearing status was significant for subjective long-term memory complaints and not for subjective short-term memory complaints. Pairwise comparisons, however, revealed no significant differences between hearing loss groups with respect to subjective long-term complaints.
UNASSIGNED: This cross-sectional study indicates an association between hearing loss and subjective long-term memory complaints but not with subjective short-term memory complaints. In addition, an interaction between hearing status and hearing aid use for subjective long-term memory complaints was observed in hearing-impaired groups, which calls for future research to examine the effects of hearing aid use on different memory systems.

As with many professions, audiology is continuing to evolve. More specifically in terms of hearing device technology, we see evolution in remote accessibility to providers, public knowledge of devices, and services provided by hearing care professionals. Each of these topics plays a role in an individual\'s decision to pursue any sort of hearing care services. Given the variety of new devices soon coming to the market (over-the-counter devices), it is important for the audiologist to understand patient motivators and how they have a great impact on both the practice of audiology as well as the patient\'s overall satisfaction. The goal of this article is to investigate the MarkeTrak 2022 data to determine the trends in adoption and use of hearing aids as well as examine predictive factors that can be used to better understand hearing aid adoption.

The MarkeTrak survey of the trends in hearing aid use, satisfaction and adoption in the United States has been conducted since 1989 by the Hearing Industries Association. It provide the hearing aid industry with valuable about the consumers view of the products and services within the industry. The EuroTrak survey is conducted by the European Hearing Instrument Manufactures Association. It is the counterpart to MarkeTrak and provides similar data for over a dozen countries in Europe, and Asia. While there are differences in the distribution models and reimbursement methods for these counties, many of the key metrics concerning hearing aid use and satisfaction can be compared.