Satisfaction with Hearing Aids Based on Technology and Style among Hearing Impaired Persons

Document Type : Original


1 Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Department of Rehabilitation Administration, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Centre, School of Rehabilitation, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation. IUMS Lecturer, Iran Medical Sciences University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Hearing and Speech Research Center, School of Rehabilitation, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.


Hearing loss is one of the most disabling impairments. Using a hearing aid as an attempt to improve the hearing problem can positively affect the quality of life for these people. This research was aimed to assess satisfaction of hearing impaired patients with their hearing aids regarding the employed technology and style.
Materials and Methods:
This descriptive-analytic cross-sectional research was conducted on 187 subjects with hearing loss who were using a hearing aid. The subjects were over 18 years of age and were using a hearing aid for at least 6 months. The Persian version of Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire was the instrument which was used for assessing satisfaction with the hearing aid. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.80 for instrument reliability.
A significant difference was observed among satisfaction subscales’ mean scores with hearing aid technology. Also a significant difference was observed between the total satisfaction score and the hearing aid model. With respect to the analysis of satisfaction with the hearing aid and its style, cost and services was the only subscale which showed a significant difference (P=0.005).
Respondents using hearing aids with different technology and style were estimated to be quite satisfied. Training audiologists in using more appropriate and fitting hearing aids in addition to using self-reporting questionnaires like SADL for estimating patients’ social condition and participation in their life can essentially change their disability condition and countervail their hearing loss.


Main Subjects

1. Multi-country assessment of national capacity to provide hearing care. Geneva: WHO publications; 2013.
2. Angeli RD, Jotz GP, Barba MC, Demengbi PGM, Mello CHP. Effectiveness of a Program of Auditory Prothetziation  in Elders Through the Application of HHIE– S questionnaires. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 13(3):277–80.
3. Pacala JT, Yuel B. Hearing Deficits in the older patients. JAMA. 2012; 307(11): 1185-94.
4. Ivory PJ, Hendricks BL, Ven Vilet D, Beyar CM, Abrams HB. Short- term hearing aid benefit in a large group. Trends Amplif. 2009; 13(4):260-80.
5. Israsena P, Isaradisaikul P, Noymai A, Boonyanukul S, Hamakom A, Chinnarat C, et al. Developing an appropriate digital hearing aid for low- resource countries: A case study. Scientific World Journal. 2013; 549486:1-8.
6.  Khalifa OO, Makhtar MH, Baharom MS. Hearing aids system for impaired peoples. International Journal of computing & information sciences. 2004; 2(1): 23-6.
7. Wouters J, Geuts L, Laneau J, Luts H, Maj JB, Moonen M, et al. Digital hearing aids and future directions for hearing aids. Acta otorhinolaryngol Belg.2002; 56(4): 357-61.
8. Kerchkhoff J, Listen berger J, Valente M. Advances in hearing aid technology. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders. 2008; 35:102-12.
9. Levitt H. Digital hearing aids: A tutorial review. J rehabil Res Dev.1987; 24(4): 7-20.
10. Perez E, Edmonds BA. A Systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: A descriptive summary of measurement tools. Plos One.2012;7(3):e 31831.
11. Metsalaar M, Matt B, Krijnen P, Verschuure H, Dreschler WA, Feenstra L. Self-reported disability and benefit of hearing aids: Comparison of fitting precedures, degree of hearing loss, experience with hearing aids and uni-and bilateral fittings. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 266(12):907-17.
12. Uriarte M, Denzin L, Dunstan A, Sellars J, Hickson L. Measuring hearing aid outcomes using the satisfaction with amplification in daily life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian Data. J Am Acad Audiol.2005; 16(6): 383-402.
13. Dashti R, FarajiKhiavi F, Sameni SJ, Bayat A. Satisfaction with hearing aids among aged patients with different degrees of hearing loss and length of daily use. J Audiol Otol.2015; 19(1):14-19.
14. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear. 1999; 20 (4): 360-20.
15. Veiga LR, Merlo AR, Mengue SS. Satisfaction level with hearing aid in the daily life of army healthcare system users. Rev Bras Ottorhinolaryngol. 2005; 71(1): 67- 73.
16. Carvelho JSA. Satisfaction of the elderly with hearing aid provided in Tocantis state- Brazil. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol.2007; 11(4): 416- 26.
17. Hosford-Dunn H, Halpern J. Clinical application of the satisfaction with amplification in daily life scale in private practice II: predictive validity of fitting variables. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12(1): 15-36.
18. Jerram JC, Purdy SC. Technology, expectations and adjustment to hearing loss: predictors of hearing aid outcome.J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12(2):64-79.
19. Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hearing J.2005; 58(9):30-9.
20. Vuorialho A, Karinen P, Sorri M. Effects of Hearing Aids on Hearing Disability and Quality of
Life in the Elderly. Int J Audio.2006; 45(7):400-5.
21. Arlinger S. Negative consequences of unaccepted hearing loss: a review. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42(2S):
22. Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Hildesheimer M, Henkin Y. Hearing aid satisfaction and use in the advanced digital era. Laryngoscope. 2012; 122(9): 2029-36.
23. Dillon H, Birtles J, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcome of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid users’ questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 67-79.