Publications by Type: Journal Article

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss (HL) is prevalent and independently related to cognitive decline and dementia. There has never been a randomized trial to test if HL treatment could reduce cognitive decline in older adults.

METHODS: A 40-person (aged 70-84 years) pilot study in Washington County, MD, was conducted. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a best practices hearing or successful aging intervention and followed for 6 months. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02412254.

RESULTS: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Pilot (ACHIEVE-P) Study demonstrated feasibility in recruitment, retention, and implementation of interventions with no treatment-related adverse events. A clear efficacy signal of the hearing intervention was observed in perceived hearing handicap (mean of 0.11 to -1.29 standard deviation [SD] units; lower scores better) and memory (mean of -0.10 SD to 0.38 SD).

DISCUSSION: ACHIEVE-P sets the stage for the full-scale ACHIEVE trial (N = 850, recruitment beginning November 2017), the first randomized trial to determine efficacy of a best practices hearing (vs. successful aging) intervention on reducing cognitive decline in older adults with HL.

Age-related hearing loss affects nearly thirty million older adults in the United States and is associated with increased risk of several other adverse health outcomes. Although hearing aids are the most common efficacious treatment, Medicaid coverage of the aids is not federally mandated, and cost has been cited as a barrier to access. In this first (to our knowledge) comprehensive review of state-level Medicaid coverage of hearing aids and associated services for age-related hearing loss, we found that twenty-eight states offer some degree of coverage-which varies substantially with respect to extent and hearing loss eligibility requirements. Based on six criteria, we rated those states' coverage as fair, good, or excellent. The remaining twenty-two states have no coverage, which leaves few options for their residents with hearing loss who face financial constraints. Policy makers at the state and federal levels should consider how to make care for age-related hearing loss more accessible, affordable, and equitable nationwide.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss (HL) is prevalent and independently related to cognitive decline and dementia. There has never been a randomized trial to test if HL treatment could reduce cognitive decline in older adults.

METHODS: A 40-person (aged 70-84 years) pilot study in Washington County, MD, was conducted. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a best practices hearing or successful aging intervention and followed for 6 months. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02412254.

RESULTS: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Pilot (ACHIEVE-P) Study demonstrated feasibility in recruitment, retention, and implementation of interventions with no treatment-related adverse events. A clear efficacy signal of the hearing intervention was observed in perceived hearing handicap (mean of 0.11 to -1.29 standard deviation [SD] units; lower scores better) and memory (mean of -0.10 SD to 0.38 SD).

DISCUSSION: ACHIEVE-P sets the stage for the full-scale ACHIEVE trial (N = 850, recruitment beginning November 2017), the first randomized trial to determine efficacy of a best practices hearing (vs. successful aging) intervention on reducing cognitive decline in older adults with HL.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program as a supplement to standard-of-care hearing aid intervention in a Veteran population.

DESIGN: A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare outcomes following standard-of-care hearing aid intervention supplemented with (1) LACE training using the 10-session DVD format, (2) LACE training using the 20-session computer-based format, (3) placebo auditory training (AT) consisting of actively listening to 10 hr of digitized books on a computer, and (4) educational counseling-the control group. The study involved 3 VA sites and enrolled 279 veterans. Both new and experienced hearing aid users participated to determine if outcomes differed as a function of hearing aid user status. Data for five behavioral and two self-report measures were collected during three research visits: baseline, immediately following the intervention period, and at 6 months postintervention. The five behavioral measures were selected to determine whether the perceptual and cognitive skills targeted in LACE training generalized to untrained tasks that required similar underlying skills. The two self-report measures were completed to determine whether the training resulted in a lessening of activity limitations and participation restrictions. Outcomes were obtained from 263 participants immediately following the intervention period and from 243 participants 6 months postintervention. Analyses of covariance comparing performance on each outcome measure separately were conducted using intervention and hearing aid user status as between-subject factors, visit as a within-subject factor, and baseline performance as a covariate.

RESULTS: No statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for the use of LACE on any outcome measure.

CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this randomized controlled trial show that LACE training does not result in improved outcomes over standard-of-care hearing aid intervention alone. Potential benefits of AT may be different than those assessed by the performance and self-report measures utilized here. Individual differences not assessed in this study should be examined to evaluate whether AT with LACE has any benefits for particular individuals. Clinically, these findings suggest that audiologists may want to temper the expectations of their patients who embark on LACE training.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training.

METHOD: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo "books-on-tape" training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems.

RESULTS: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%-17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance.

CONCLUSION: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

UNLABELLED: Vast numbers of blast-injured Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation New Dawn personnel report postconcussive symptoms that include headache, dizziness, poor memory, and difficulty concentrating. In addition, many report hearing problems, such as difficulty understanding speech in noise, yet have no measureable peripheral auditory deficits. In this article, self-report and performance-based measures were used to assess 99 blast-exposed Veterans. All participants reported auditory problems in difficult listening situations but had clinically normal hearing. Participants' scores on self-report questionnaires of auditory difficulties were more similar to scores of older individuals with hearing impairment than to those of younger individuals with normal hearing. Participants showed deficits relative to published normative data on a number of performance-based tests that have demonstrated sensitivity to auditory processing deficits. There were several measures on which more than the expected number of participants (15.9%) performed one or more standard deviations below the mean. These were assessments of speech understanding in noise, binaural processing, temporal resolution, and speech segregation. Performance was not universally poor, with approximately 53% of participants performing abnormally on between 3 and 6 of the 10 measures. We concluded that participants exhibited task-specific deficits that add to the evidence suggesting that blast injury results in damage to the central auditory system.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Approaches to Auditory Rehabilitation for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI); NCT00930774; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00930774?term=NCT00930774&rank=1.

BACKGROUND: Tele-audiology provides a means to offer audiologic rehabilitation (AR) in a cost-, resource-, and time-effective manner. If designed appropriately, it also has the capability of personalizing rehabilitation to the user in terms of content, depth of detail, etc., thus permitting selection of the best content for a particular individual. Synchronous/real-time data collection, store and forward telehealth, remote monitoring and mobile health using smartphone applications have each been applied to components of audiologic rehabilitation intervention (sensory management, instruction in the use of technology and control of the listening environment, perceptual and communication strategies training, and counseling). In this article, the current state of tele-audiological rehabilitation interventions are described and discussed.

RESULTS: The provision of AR via tele-audiology potentially provides a cost-effective mechanism for addressing barriers to the routine provision of AR beyond provisions of hearing technology. Furthermore, if designed appropriately, it has the capability of personalizing rehabilitation to the user in terms of content, depth of detail, etc., thus permitting selection of the best content for a particular individual. However, effective widespread implementation of tele-audiology will be dependent on good education of patients and clinician alike, and researchers must continue to examine the effectiveness of these new approaches to AR in order to ensure clinicians provide effective evidence-based rehabilitation to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS: While several barriers to the widespread use of tele-audiology for audiologic rehabilitation currently exist, it is concluded that through education of patients and clinicians alike, it will gain greater support from practitioners and patients over time and will become successfully and widely implemented.

PURPOSE: This study explored whether perceptions of evidence or organizational context were associated with the use of external memory aids with residents with dementia in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).

METHOD: A survey design, supplemented by a small sample of exploratory interviews, was completed within the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Ninety-six speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and 68 facility rehabilitation directors (FRDs) completed the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (Helfrich, Li, Sharp, & Sales, 2009) in relationship to the use of external memory aids. Five SLPs completed an interview exploring perceptions of evidence and context in relationship to memory aid use.

RESULTS: SLPs and FRDs had favorable perceptions of evidence supporting memory aids. FRDs perceived the organizational context of the SNF more favorably than SLPs. SLP participants used external memory aids in the past 6 months in 45.89% of cases of residents with dementia. For SLP participants, a 26% (p < .05) increase of external memory aid use was associated with every 1-unit change in favor of the evidence. Interview data revealed barriers to external memory aid implementation.

CONCLUSIONS: Part of evidence-based practice implementation may be influenced by clinician perceptions. Efforts to increase implementation of external memory aids in SNFs should address these clinician perceptions.

PURPOSE: To examine the role of compliance in the outcomes of computer-based auditory training with the Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program in Veterans using hearing aids.

METHOD: The authors examined available LACE training data for 5 tasks (i.e., speech-in-babble, time compression, competing speaker, auditory memory, missing word) from 50 hearing-aid users who participated in a larger, randomized controlled trial designed to examine the efficacy of LACE training. The goals were to determine: (a) whether there were changes in performance over 20 training sessions on trained tasks (i.e., on-task outcomes); and (b) whether compliance, defined as completing all 20 sessions, vs. noncompliance, defined as completing less than 20 sessions, influenced performance on parallel untrained tasks (i.e., off-task outcomes).

RESULTS: The majority, 84% of participants, completed 20 sessions, with maximum outcome occurring with at least 10 sessions of training for some tasks and up to 20 sessions of training for others. Comparison of baseline to posttest performance revealed statistically significant improvements for 4 of 7 off-task outcome measures for the compliant group, with at least small (0.2 < d < 0.3) Cohen's d effect sizes for 3 of the 4. There were no statistically significant improvements observed for the noncompliant group.

CONCLUSION: The high level of compliance in the present study may be attributable to use of systematized verbal and written instructions with telephone follow-up. Compliance, as expected, appears important for optimizing the outcomes of auditory training. Methods to improve compliance in clinical populations need to be developed, and compliance data are important to report in future studies of auditory training.

BACKGROUND: Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment.

RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational design was used in both experiments.

STUDY SAMPLE: Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n = 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n = 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants.

RESULTS: The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach's α = .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach's α > .75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC = .93) and of the subscales (each ICC > .80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.