The benefit of hearing aids in adults with hearing loss during the Covid–19 pandemic

Abstract

Background/Aim: Hearing aids, cochlear implants, and guidance are highly effective in improving communication skills and the quality of life of individuals with hearing loss. During the Covid-19 pandemic, patients with hearing loss, especially those living far from city centers, faced insufficient device use due to their inability to go to the hospitals and device centers. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of remote monitorization of sound amplification in adults using cochlear implants and/or hearing aids during the lockdown period. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 98 individuals with post-lingual cochlear implants (n=38) and hearing aids (n=60). Patients on hearing aids followed before the Covid-19 pandemic were guided with a remote computer connection during the pandemic. All participants filled out the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ), the short version of Speech Spatial Quality of Questionnaire (SSQ12), Short Form-36 quality of life questionnaires (SF-36), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life Questionnaire (SADL), and the Coronavirus 19 Phobia Scale (C19P-S) via google questionnaire. Results: During the lockdown period, there were significant increases in the spatial perception scores (SSQ12) of cochlear implant and hearing aid users (P<0.05). A moderate correlation was found between SSQ12 and SHQ scores in cochlear implant (r=0.482, P=0.021) and hearing aid users (r=0.512, P=0.011). During the lockdown period, the SADL overall scores were significantly higher among cochlear implant users (P<0.05). When the subscales of SF-36 for both cochlear implant and hearing aid users were compared with the normative values of these subtests (energy/vitality, role limitations due to physical dysfunctions and emotional problems, mental health, and pain), it was observed that there was a significant improvement in the scores of individuals using hearing aids and cochlear implants (P<0.05). Conclusion: During the lockdown period, hearing performance, quality of life, and hearing aid satisfaction of patients using cochlear implants and hearing aids increased after tele-audiology guidance.

Keywords

• Cochlear Implantation
• Tele-Audiology guide
• Covid-19 pandemic
• Speech Spatial Quality of Questionnaire (SSQ)

Kaynakça

1. 1. World Health Organization (2021). Deafness and hearing loss [online]. Website: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/ [Accessed 06 15 2021].
2. 2. Stevens G, Flaxman S, Brunskill E, Mascarenhas M, Mathers CD, Finucane M. Global and regional hearing impairment prevalence: an analysis of 42 studies in 29 countries. Eur. J. Public Health. 2013;23(1):146-52. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr176.
3. 3. Hawryluck L, Gold WL, Robinson S, Pogorski S, Galea S, Styra R. SARS control and psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004;10(7):1206-12. doi: 10.3201/eid1007.030703.
4. 4. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The lancet. 2020;395(10223): 497-506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
5. 5. Zhou P, Yang X-L, Wang X-G, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020; 579(7798):270-3. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7.
6. 6. World Health Organization (2020). WHO director-general’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 [online]. Website: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-themedia-briefing-on-covid-19 [Accessed 03 27 2020].
7. 7. World Health Organization (2021). World Health Organization Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard [online]. Website: https://covid19.who.int/ [06 24 2021].
8. 8. Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66(4):317-320. doi: 10.1177/0020764020915212.

9. 9. Fu Q-J, Nogaki G, Galvin JJ. Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005;6(2):180-9. doi: 10.1007/s10162-005-5061-6.
10. 10. Milstein D, Weinstein BE. Effects of information sharing on follow-up after hearing screening for older adults. J Acad Rehabil Audiol. 2002;35:43-58.
11. 11. Krumm M. Audiology telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(5):224-9. doi: 10.1258/135763307781458912
12. 12. Bush ML, Thompson R, Irungu C, Ayugi J. The role of telemedicine in auditory rehabilitation: A systematic review. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(10):1466-74. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001236.
13. 13. Penteado SP, de Lima Ramos S, Battistella LR, Marone SAM, Bento RF. Remote hearing aid fitting: Tele-audiology in the context of Brazilian Public Policy. Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;16(03):371-81. doi: 10.7162/S1809-97772012000300012.
14. 14. Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H. The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear. 2009;30(4):466-474. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61efe.
15. 15. Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int. J. Audiol. 2004;43(2):85-99. doi: 10.1080/14992020400050014.
16. 16. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Validation of the SADL questionnaire. Ear Hear. 2001;22(2):151-60.
17. 17. Genç M, Çildir B, Kaya M. Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living Questionnaire in Hearing Aid Users. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018;29(10):898-908. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17073.
18. 18. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care. 1992:473-83.
19. 19. Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, Semin S, Akvardar Y, Kıvırcık B, et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC public health. 2006;6(1):247. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-247.
20. 20. Arpaci I, Karataş K, Baloğlu M. The development and initial tests for the psychometric properties of the COVID-19 Phobia Scale (C19P-S). Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020;164:110108. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110108.
21. 21. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993;306(6890): 1437-40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437.
22. 22. Kaddu S, Kovarik C, Gabler G, Soyer HP. Teledermatology in developing countries. In: Telehealth in the Developing World. CRC Press. 2019:121-34.
23. 23. Fabry D. Applications of telehealth for hearing care. Audiology Today. 2010;22(5):18-25.
24. 24. Zhang J, Tyler R, Ji H, Dunn C, Wang N, Hansen M, et al. Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ) changes over time in adults with simultaneous cochlear implants. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(3):384-97. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJA-14-0074.
25. 25. Arnoldner C, Lin VY, Honeder C, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J. Ten‐year health‐related quality of life in cochlear implant recipients: prospective SF‐36 data with SF‐6D conversion. The Laryngoscope. 2014;124(1):278-82. doi: 10.1002/lary.24387.
26. 26. Olze H, Szczepek AJ, Haupt H, Förster U, Zirke N, Gräbel S, et al. Cochlear implantation has a positive influence on quality of life, tinnitus, and psychological comorbidity. The Laryngoscope. 2011;121(10):2220-7. doi: 10.1002/lary.22145
27. 27. Blasco MA, Redleaf MI. Cochlear implantation in unilateral sudden deafness improves tinnitus and speech comprehension: meta-analysis and systematic review. Otol. Neurotol. 2014;35(8):1426-32. doi: doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000431.
28. 28. Stark P, Hickson L. Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int. J. Audiol. 2004;43(7):390-8. doi: 10.1080/14992020400050050.
29. 29. Ou H, Dunn CC, Bentler RA, Zhang X. Measuring cochlear implant satisfaction in postlingually deafened adults with the SADL inventory. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(9):721-34. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19.9.7.