A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Self-Fit Methods to the Best-Practices...

Area of Science:

• Audiology
• Hearing Health
• Medical Devices

Background:

• Hearing loss affects millions, impacting quality of life.
• Traditional hearing aid fitting involves audiologist expertise.
• Self-fitting hearing aid options are emerging as alternatives.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of two self-fitting hearing aid methods against a best-practices audiologist-fit method.
• To determine if self-fitting hearing aids provide noninferior outcomes compared to professional fitting.
• To assess hearing aid benefit at 6 weeks and 6 months post-fitting.

Main Methods:

• A randomized, multisite, comparative-effectiveness trial involving 584 participants aged 50-79 with no prior hearing aid use.
• Participants were randomized into three groups: audiologist-fit (Group AB) or two self-fit methods (Groups CD and EF).
• Outcomes measured using the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB) and Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), with researchers blinded to treatment groups.

Main Results:

• At 6 weeks and 6 months, no significant differences in PHAB global scores or HHIE benefit scores were found between the audiologist-fit and self-fit groups (p > .05).
• Both self-fitting methods (CD and EF) were noninferior to the professional-fit method (AB) for primary and secondary outcomes.
• No significant adverse events were reported across all groups.

Conclusions:

• Self-fitting hearing aids offer comparable effectiveness to traditional audiologist fitting for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss.
• Clinically meaningful hearing benefit can be achieved through self-fitting methods.
• This supports the viability of self-fitting as an accessible and effective hearing aid option.