Effectiveness of an OTC Hearing Aid vs. Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid

For those that don’t want to read the study:

The randomized clinical trial found that self-reported and speech-in-noise benefit was equivalent between the self-fitting OTC and audiologist-fitted hearing aid conditions at the end of 6 weeks. These findings suggest that a self-fitting OTC hearing aid may be an effective intervention option for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss and produce self-perceived and clinical outcomes similar to those of an audiologist-fitted hearing aid. You can find more information on this study design on page 2.

How do OTC hearing aids with remote support compare to audiologist-fitted hearing aids?

According to the randomized clinical trial discussed in this PDF file, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. This suggests that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss. You can find more information on this comparison on page 1 and 2.

What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of using an OTC hearing aid?

This PDF file does not provide a comprehensive list of potential benefits and drawbacks of using an OTC hearing aid. However, it does suggest that OTC hearing aids may improve access and affordability for those with hearing loss. It is important to note that the effectiveness of OTC hearing aids may vary depending on the individual’s specific needs and the severity of their hearing loss. Additionally, some individuals may require more personalized care and attention from an audiologist to achieve optimal results. If you have further questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using an OTC hearing aid, it is recommended that you consult with a healthcare professional or audiologist.

Wait, is this a test about self fitting aids versus audi ajusted aid…or OTC aids versus more expensive prescription aids?

.the test was conducted with one brand (?) of aid, Lexie, unless that’s an acronym. The OTC folks were able to adjust their aids as they went along. Apparently, not so the Audi folks: Other than that, was it the same aid? If so, this is a study about self fitting, not OTC versus higher end aids.

“The intervention offered is a hearing aid fitting with Lexie Lumen hearing aids coupled with slimtube and dome. Hearing aids will be fitted by a certified audiologist according to a gold-standard prescriptive formula (NAL-NL2) using a clinically obtained diagnostic pure tone audiogram. Participants will have access to the smartphone application, but the settings will be limited with only options to change the volume of the hearing aids.”

One wonders about what the above really means; maybe the Lumen had an auto function that turned on speech in noise programs etc. I also wonder about the domes: what if folks need custom molds? this can make a big difference, altho it seems like the trial was limited to folks with mild to moderate loss where custom molds are less needed.

And then as always, one wonders who funded this. still, it’s very interesting.

The study reports that other studies and and this one found REM gave almost no added benefit to speech in noise. In short it downplays the necessity of an Audi for fitting.

My audi gave me a couple of plastic bars with notches. The straps from the mask are worn behind the neck this way. Works great and no more mask straps behind the ears.

Thanks jeffrey.

Mask extenders. Amazon has them.
I bought some; but my hearing aids are high on my ear and they didn’t help.

DaveL

I’m sorta confused. The straps from the mask are worn behind the neck with these, completely off the ears…???

edit: I just went on Amazon and saw half a dozen different designs, most still on the ear. My simple plastic device sits at the base of my skull and I attach the straps off the ears entirely.

Excelllent. That’s a simple fix. I’ll try it.

Real goal is to make sure the mask fits right so it protects the user. I worked for Atomic Energy of Canada one summer. I was in the active area every day. The apparatus they used to check mask fit was elaborate. Luckily I never needed a mask and all were safe. Now we buy masks somewhere and put them on…and hope they work.

I think its pretty obvious this trial was paid for by the makers of Lexie.

Based on what they did, the results are not surprising. However the only thing the study shows is that Lexie HAs worked just as well by setting up with their smartphone app vs being setup by a professional audiologist.

So the bottom line is that the study showed the Lexie app works well with their HAs. But what we don’t have any idea on is how the Lexie HAs stack up against top-of-line HAs from the major manufacturers like Oticon, Phonak, ReSound and etc…

@texaco24.9 said:

I think its pretty obvious this trial was paid for by the makers of Lexie.

the report begins by stating that the researchers initial assumption is that there will be no difference between self fitting and audi fitting. And lo and behold, the study found that to be true! One might think that, rather than starting with an initial hypothesis, the researchers would have done the study without prior assumptions.

the audi group could only control volume. I’m thinking they had no access to other features, like speech in noise programs etc. whereas the self fitters did. Yeah, that would skew things pretty well towards the self fitters. I could be wrong, in that the self fitters aids may have had automatic adjustment. Might have. That needed to be made plain. I think this study will end up being quoted in ad literature as a selling point for self fitting aids.

Don’t mean to be insulting, but that’s not how science works. The default is to start with the null hypothesis and see if the data prove it wrong. Numeracy, Maths and Statistics - Academic Skills Kit.

@jeffrey every study must state a null hypothesis at the outset- it is a necessary starting point to any valid investigation.

I gave an A and B alternative in my example above, correlating to a null hypothesis followed by an alternative hypothesis. This is much better research form.

By the way, I and others also suggested ways this study might be compromised beyond the initial premise. Please at least acknowledge this, since you won’t be responding to those points.

@Jeffrey… the hubris… Quickly! Inform the rest of the research community of your stroke of genius. I’m sure they’ll be glad to know that what they have considered the basic tenets of good research for decades is wrong, and they’ll be done with all those pesky hypotheses.

There are philosophical and statistical reasons for hypotheses/null hypotheses. Rather than berate us for our inability to “grasp” your idea, perhaps educate yourself first and see if there are valid reasons against your argument.