Impact of hearing aids on the quality of life of adults with adult disabilities: scope review

Vieira, Emilly Shanaia Silva; Monteiro, Micaelle Carvalho; César, Carla Patrícia Hernandez Alves Ribeiro; Rosa, Bárbara Cristina da Silva

doi:10.1590/2317-6431-2023-2804en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Audiology - Communication Research

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Literature Review • Audiol., Commun. Res. 28 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2023-2804en copy

Impact of hearing aids on the quality of life of adults with adult disabilities: scope review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To verify the benefits of hearing aids in the quality of life of adults with hearing loss.

Research strategy

Scoping review guided by PRISMA recommendations.

Selection criteria

with the help of the keywords “hearing aids”, “hearing aid”, “cochlear implant”, “speech therapy”, “hearing impairment”, “hearing loss”, “quality of life”, and their respective in English and Spanish in the virtual databases: LILACS, SciELO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Open Grey. Qualitatively analyzed.

Results

1,312 records were identified and six articles were selected, with a hearing aided population from 18 to 92 years old, from both genders, cochlear implant and individual sound amplification device users. Questionnaires were used (assessment of expectations of adults/elderly users of hearing aids, International Outcome Inventory For Hearing Aids, Nijmegen Cochlear Implant, Satisfaction, Caregiver Strain Questionnaire, Relative to the Index, World Health Organization Quality of Life-bref, Glasgow Health Status Inventory, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Cochlear Implant Quality of Life and scales (Care Giving Burden Scale), Denver Quantified and visual analog). The results indicated a better quality of life in the domains tested, both in the view of deaf adults and their partners.

Conclusion

Despite the heterogeneity of the quality of life protocols used in the selected studies, it was possible to verify that hearing aids increase the quality of life of adults with hearing loss.

Keywords:
Hearing aids; Hearing aid; Cochlear implant; Speech therapy; Hearing impairment; Hearing loss; Quality of life

Identification and type of study		Sample	Type of hearing aid and localization
Authors	Type of study	N/Gender/Age	Device/Characteristics
City/country of study and Publication Language	Type of study	N/Gender/Age	Device/Characteristics
Moura et al.⁽⁸8 Moura TP, Santos SN, Costa MJ. Preocupações anteriores à adaptação de próteses auditivas e suas implicações no benefício subjetivo do usuário. Distúrb Comun. 2013;25(3):315-26.⁾	Observational and prospective	N=28	Device: HA
Santa Maria Brazil/Portuguese		Age: 61 to 94 anos (average of age 77 years old and 5 months ± 16 years old and 5 months). Gender: 16 M and 12 F	Localization: bilateral.
			It does not specify the period of time and the period of disability
Chen et al.⁽⁹9 Chen S, Karamy B, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J, Lin V. Assessment of the psychosocial impacts of cochlear implants on adult recipients and their partners. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(2):90-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.1102456. PMid:26839952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.... ⁾	Cross-Sectional and qualitative	N=43	Device: CI
Toronto Canada/English		Age: average of 62 years old ± 10 years old and 5 months.	Average usage time: 5 years e 6 months ± 6 years
		Gender: 20 F and 23 M	Period of HI before the use of CI (5 between 0-4 years; 4 between 5-9
			years; 4 between 15-19 years and 6 with 20 years or more).
			It does not give information about the side of use.
Ramos-Macías et al.⁽¹⁰10 Ramos-Macías Á, Falcón González JC, Borkoski-Barreiro SA, Ramos de Miguel Á, Batista DS, Pérez Plasencia D. Health-related quality of life in adult cochlear implant users: a descriptive observational study. Audiol Neurotol. 2016;21(Suppl. 1):36-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448353. PMid:27806363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448353... ⁾	Observational descriptive	N=150	Device: CI unilateral and bilateral.
Las Palmas Spain/English		Gender: 80 F and 70 M	Usage time between 1 and 10 years.
		Ages: 18 to 60 years old	It does not inform the duration of the auditory disability.
		(N=100) and over 60 years old (N=50).
		Average age 39 years old ± 21 years old.
Sousa et al.⁽¹¹11 Sousa AF. Qualidade de vida e implante coclear: resultados em adultos com deficiência auditiva pós-lingual [dissertação]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo; 2017. .⁾	Clinical cross-sectional	N= 26	Device: CI unilateral and bilateral.
São Paulo Brazil/English		Gender: 14 F and 12 M	Average time of use: 80 months.
		Age: 18 to 62 years olds
		Average age 40 years old ± 22 years old.
Ribeiro et al.⁽¹1 Ribeiro UASL, Souza VC, Lemos SMA. Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual. CoDAS. 2019;31(2):e20170287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/2018... ⁾	Observational and Cross-Sectional	N= 114	Device: HA
Belo Horizonte Brazil/Portuguese		Gender: 59 F and 55 M	It does not inform the side of use and usage time.
		Age: 19 to 92 years old	Period of Hearing loss: between 0 to 60 years.
		Average age 55 years old e 5 months ± 36 years old e 5 months.
McRackan et al.⁽¹²12 McRackan TR, Reddy P, Costello MS, Dubno JR. Role of preoperative patient expectations in adult cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(2):e130-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002873. PMid:33229876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000... ⁾	Cross-Sectional	N= 41	Device: CI
Charleston United States/English		Gender: 23 M and 18	Unilateral e bilateral.
		Age: greater than or equal to 18 years old.	Period of use: 12 months.
		Average age 63 years old and 9 months ± 10 years old and 1 month.	Period of hearing disability:17 years.

Identification data	Metodology	Results of the application of Quality of Life questionnaires and protocols and Conclusion
Authors	Protocols/Questionnaires	Principal results and article conclusion
Moura et al.⁽⁸8 Moura TP, Santos SN, Costa MJ. Preocupações anteriores à adaptação de próteses auditivas e suas implicações no benefício subjetivo do usuário. Distúrb Comun. 2013;25(3):315-26.⁾	It was used two questionnaires: the questionnaire to evaluate the expectations of adults/elderly users of hearing aids, to investigate concerns prior to the use of hearing aids and the International Outcome Inventory For Hearing Aids (IOI - HA), to measure the level of subjective benefit of the user of hearing aids in relation to your hearing aid and the environment	In the questionnaire of evaluation of the expectations of adult/elderly, a low level of concern regarding hearing aids was observed, while in IOI-HA there was a positive assessment of the use of hearing aids. Therefore, after analyzing the data, it was verified that the concerns did not interfere with the subjective benefit reported by the patient.
Chen et al.⁽⁹9 Chen S, Karamy B, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J, Lin V. Assessment of the psychosocial impacts of cochlear implants on adult recipients and their partners. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(2):90-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.1102456. PMid:26839952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2015.... ⁾	The authors idealized two instruments: The instrument filled by the implanted patients, based on Nijmegen Cochlear Implants Questionnaire - NCIQ and Cochlear Implant Satisfaction Questionnaire - CISQ and the instrument filled by the caregivers and partners, based on Caregiver Strain Questionnaire, Care Giving Burden Scale (CGBS), Quantified Denver Scale (modified for the partners), Index Relative Questionnaire Form (IRQF) and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)	Regarding the users, it was noted the following aspects: talking to other people in a calm environment; more safety and self confidence to talk; hear cars approaching in traffic with improvements greater than 80% and the ones that presented relative improvement (less than 50%): auto perception with HI and the fact that the hearing is not a limiter factor anymore in their lives, sound localization (behind), watch TV and listen to music. Regarding the partners/caregivers: report of improvement in every physical well-being, emotional, social and general domains. In general, the use of CI demonstrated to have significant benefits for the psychosocial well-being, both CI users and their cargivers/partners.
Ramos-Macías et al.⁽¹⁰10 Ramos-Macías Á, Falcón González JC, Borkoski-Barreiro SA, Ramos de Miguel Á, Batista DS, Pérez Plasencia D. Health-related quality of life in adult cochlear implant users: a descriptive observational study. Audiol Neurotol. 2016;21(Suppl. 1):36-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448353. PMid:27806363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448353... ⁾	It was applied two instruments: Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI) with an specific focus on auditory difficulties and its impacts in daily life (through the interviewer’s report) and Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) with focus on the auditory capacity in a variety of daily situations and self-evaluation.	After analyzing the different subscales of the Glasgow Benefits Inventory, they showed no relationship between the physical subscale and communication skills, concluding that CI treatment provided to elderly patients with hearing impairment has the potential to improve quality of life and understanding speech to a similar degree as observed in younger CI users. The APHAB demonstrated no evidence of influence between self-reported general health and patient variables (gender, implant configuration, age, or duration of post-implant experience). However, the neural network model demonstrated influence on general health status from self-reports of social support, physical health, and self-rated difficulties communicating, both in noise and easier listening environments. Therefore, there was an increase in quality of life immediately after implementation, regardless of age. Users using bilateral CI showed better results in environments with background noise and in reverberant rooms than users of unilateral CI.
Sousa et al.⁽¹¹11 Sousa AF. Qualidade de vida e implante coclear: resultados em adultos com deficiência auditiva pós-lingual [dissertação]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo; 2017. .⁾	The following questionnaires were used: the Cochlear Implant Nijmegen and the World Health Organization Quality of Life bref (WHOQOL-bref). Both were sent via electronic media.	The Nijmegen of Cochlear Implants (NCIQ-P) demonstrated that the social domain (limitations in activities and social interactions) was the highest scored aspect in the sample, with percentages of 70.2% and 72.9% respectively, followed by the psychological and physical domain, with the percentage of 69.9% and 67.8%, respectively. In WHOQOL-bref, the psychological and physical domains were the best evaluated aspects, with 73.6% and 72.5%, respectively, followed by the domains of social relationships and environment and obtained an average percentage of 69.9% and 61.1%, in that order. In general, CI brought benefits related to the quality of life of the subjects in the sample
Ribeiro et al.⁽¹1 Ribeiro UASL, Souza VC, Lemos SMA. Qualidade de vida e determinantes sociais em usuários de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual. CoDAS. 2019;31(2):e20170287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/2018... ⁾	The World Health Organization Quality of Life bref (WHOQOL-bref) instrument was used to measure the quality of life of HA users.	The study allowed us to verify that users who used HA effectively had a greater chance of presenting a good perception of their overall quality of life. The quality of life of HA users was related to socio-environmental, demographic and clinical factors, as well as the perception of general health status, which can be influenced by factors such as the presence of dizziness and education.
McRackan et al.⁽¹²12 McRackan TR, Reddy P, Costello MS, Dubno JR. Role of preoperative patient expectations in adult cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(2):e130-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002873. PMid:33229876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000... ⁾	Two instruments were applied: the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL- Profile) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, so that users could evaluate their general satisfaction with the CI.	The emotional, entertainment and social domains of the CIQOL demonstrated superior benefits and the communication and listening effort domains and the global score demonstrated inferior benefits. On the Visual Analogue Scale, there were no differences in self-reported CI satisfaction expectations. In general, patients' expectations before cochlear implantation can influence their post-operative quality of life, but not post-operative speech recognition.

Academia Brasileira de Audiologia Rua Itapeva, 202, conjunto 61, CEP 01332-000, Tel.: (11) 3253-8711, Fax: (11) 3253-8473 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@audiologiabrasil.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Conflict of interests: No.