Aural Rehabilitation for Older Adults with Hearing Loss: Impacts on Quality of Life—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Background:

Few systematic reviews have been conducted regarding aural rehabilitation for adults with hearing loss, with none specifically targeting the older adult population. With prevalence rates of hearing loss being highest in older adults, examining the effects of aural rehabilitation on this population is warranted.

Purpose:

To evaluate the effects of aural rehabilitation on quality of life in an older adult population presenting with hearing loss.

Eligibility Criteria:

Studies with adults presenting with hearing loss, ≥50 yr of age, with or without hearing aids, receiving interventions such as auditory training, speech-reading, communication strategies training, speech tracking, counseling, or a combination of approaches, and measuring outcomes related to quality of life, in an individual or group format, with or without significant others and with no limitations as to year of publication.

Study Selection:

Searches in six databases, as well as results from hand-searching, gray literature, and cross-referencing of articles, yielded 386 articles. Of the 145 assessed as full-text articles for eligibility, 8 studies met inclusion criteria.

Study Appraisal:

A component-based risk of bias assessment, as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Results:

No effect sizes were found in group interventions measuring outcomes related to quality of life, such as mental and emotional functions, environmental factors, participation restrictions, and activity limitations. An intervention effect regarding participation was found for a self-administered home training program, but an effect size was unavailable. Small-to-medium effect sizes were found in one of two individual communication training programs, for which outcomes related to quality of life, such as emotional functions, activities, participation, and environmental factors were measured. The results of the component-based risk of bias assessment indicated that the quality of reporting was poor, thus compromising the internal validity of included primary studies.

Conclusions:

Our results indicate that the combined body of evidence in support of aural rehabilitation for older adults with hearing loss is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions. We identify a need for more rigorous research to guide clinical decision-making.

Key Words

activity limitations - attitudes - audiologic rehabilitation - aural rehabilitation - emotional functions - hearing impaired - hearing loss - older adult - participations restrictions - quality of life

Funding was provided by the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale – Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec (CIUSSS-IRDPQ), Quebec City, Canada.

Some of the data in the manuscript were presented at the ASHA Convention in Denver, CO, November 12, 2015.

The funders played no role in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

• REFERENCES

• Andersson G, Melin L, Scott B, Lindberg P. 1994; Behavioral counselling for subjects with acquired hearing loss. A new approach to hearing tactics. Scand Audiol 23 (04) 249-256
• Andersson G, Melin L, Scott B, Lindberg P. 1995; a An evaluation of a behavioural treatment approach to hearing impairment. Behav Res Ther 33 (03) 283-292
• Andersson G, Melin L, Scott B, Lindberg P. 1995; b A two-year follow-up examination of a behavioural treatment approach to hearing tactics. Br J Audiol 29 (06) 347-354
• Boothroyd A. 2007; Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work?. Trends Amplif 11 (02) 63-71
• Chisolm T, Arnold M. 2012. Evidence about the effectiveness of aural rehabilitation programs for adults. In: Wong L, Hickson L. Evidence-Based Practice in Audiology: Evaluating Interventions for Children and Adults with Hearing Impairment. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing 237-266
• Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Portz LJ, Abrams HB, Lesner S, McCarthy PA, Newman CW. 2007; A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (02) 151-183
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum;
• Duthey B. 2013 World Health Organization: priority diseases and reasons for inclusion. Background Paper 6.21: Hearing Loss. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP6_21Hearing.pdf Accessed February 9, 2016.
• Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DPA, Moore DR. 2014; Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (04) e110-e121
• Gifford RH, Revit LJ. 2010; Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (07) 441-451, quiz 487–488
• Hawkins DB. 2005; Effectiveness of counseling-based adult group aural rehabilitation programs: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (07) 485-493
• Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. 2013; Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS One 8 (05) e62836
• Hickson L, Worrall L, Scarinci N. 2007; A randomized controlled trial evaluating the active communication education program for older people with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 28 (02) 212-230
• Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, eds. (2011) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). www.cochrane-handbook.org . Accessed May 2014
• Jennings MB. 2005. Factors that influence outcomes from aural rehabilitation of older adults: the role of perceived self-efficacy. Doctoral dissertation. London, Canada: University of Western Ontario;
• Kiessling J, Pichora-Fuller MK, Gatehouse S, Stephens D, Arlinger S, Chisolm T, Davis AC, Erber NP, Hickson L, Holmes A, Rosenhall U, von Wedel H. 2003; Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: special needs of older people. Int J Audiol 42: 2S92-2S101
• Knutson JF, Lansing CR. (1990). The relationship between communication problems and psychological difficulties in persons with profound acquired hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 55:656–664. http://jshd.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1775642 doi:10.1044/jshd.5504.656
• Kricos PB, Holmes AE, Doyle DA. 1992; Efficacy of a communication training program for hearing-impaired elderly adults. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 25: 69-80
• Kricos PB, Holmes AE. 1996; Efficacy of audiologic rehabilitation for older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (04) 219-229
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 . Accessed May, 2014
• McCarthy P, Schau N. 2008; Adult audiologic rehabilitation: a review of contemporary practices. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 35: 168-177
• McDougall J, Wright V, Rosenbaum P. 2010; The ICF model of functioning and disability: incorporating quality of life and human development. Dev Neurorehabil 13 (03) 204-211
• Monzani D, Galeazzi GM, Genovese E, Marrara A, Martini A. (2008) Psychological profile and social behaviour of working adults with mild or moderate hearing loss. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 28(2):61–66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2644978/pdf/0392-100X.28.061.pdf . Accessed April 13, 2015
• Moore DR, Rosenberg JF, Coleman JS. 2005; Discrimination training of phonemic contrasts enhances phonological processing in mainstream school children. Brain Lang 94 (01) 72-85
• Preminger JE, Ziegler CH. 2008; Can auditory and visual speech perception be trained within a group setting?. Am J Audiol 17 (01) 80-97
• Schulz KF, Grimes DA. 2002; Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359 (9305) 515-519
• Sweetow R, Palmer CV. 2005; Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (07) 494-504
• Weinstein BE, Ventry IM. 1982; Hearing impairment and social isolation in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 25 (04) 593-599 http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx? articleid=1777651 . Accessed April 13, 2015
• World Health Organization (WHO) 1997 WHOQOL measuring quality of life.. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf Accessed July 5, 2016.
• World Health Organization (WHO) 2012 Prevention of blindness and deafness: estimates. . http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/estimates/en/ Accessed February 9, 2016.