Table 1.
Characteristics of the 13 studies included in the review
| Author, Year | Country | Hearing disorder | Intervention | Study design | Number of participants | Mean age (SD or range) | Female (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barton et al. [24] | United Kingdom | Hearing impaired | Hearing aid (analogue vs. digital signal processing) | Prospective before–after study | 609 | 68.4 | 43 % |
| Barton et al. [41] | United Kingdom | Hearing impaired | Cochlear implant | Cross-sectional | 3,272 | 6 (at CI implantation) | N/R |
| Damen et al. [43] | The Netherlands | Post-lingual deaf adults. | Cochlear implant | Prospective before and after. |
37 (G1) 17 (G2) 29 (G3) |
55.1 (SD 16, G1), 50.5 (SD 21.9, G2), 61.5 (SD 13.1, G3) |
54 % (G1), 50 % (G2), 32 % (G3) |
| Gruters et al. [30] | The Netherlands | Hearing impaired | Hearing aid | 337 | 69.6 (SD 8.9) | 40 % | |
| Hol et al. [38] | The Netherlands | Conductive or mixed hearing loss | Bone-anchored hearing aid | Prospective before–after study | 56 |
52.9 (total, 24–82), 47.9 (ACHA, 24–73), 62 (CBHA, 42–82) |
61 % (total), 67 % (ACHA), 55 % (CBHA) |
| Joore et al. [31, 32]; Joore [34, 35] | The Netherlands | First-time hearing aid users | Hearing aid | Prospective before–after study | 126 | 69 (29–96) | 50 % |
| Palmer et al. [42] | Canada and United States | Severely to profoundly hearing-impaired adults | Cochlear implant | Prospective before–after study | 62 |
56 (CI, SD 15.4), 49 (non-CI, SD 14.5) |
54 % (CI) 84 % (non-CI) |
| Vuorialho et al. [36, 39] | Finland | First-time hearing aid user over 60 | Hearing aid | Prospective before–after study | 101 | 77 (Median, 61–87) | 50 % |
| Lee et al. [33] | South Korea | Post-lingual deaf adults | Cochlear implant | Retrospective before–after study | 26 | 49.6 (SD 10.9) | 36.4 % |
| Bichey et al. [29] | USA | Large vestibular aqueduct syndrome | Cochlear implant vs. hearing aid | Retrospective before–after study | 20 |
44.3 (Median, CI, 9.9–75.6); 22.5 (Median, HA, 8.6–65.1) |
N/R |
| Cheng et al. [37] | USA | Profoundly deaf | Cochlear implant | Retrospective study |
78 (VAS group), 40 (TTO group), 22(HUI3 group)* 22(HUI3 group)* |
7.5 (VAS), 7.4 (TTO), 10 (HUI3) 38.3 (parents) |
46 % (child), 89 % (parent) |
| Sach and Barton [40] | United Kingdom | Hearing-impaired children and their parents | Unilateral cochlear implant | Retrospective before–after study | 222* | 9.26 (SD 3.63) | 49.1 % |
| Lovett et al. [27] | United Kingdom | Profoundly deaf. | Cochlear implant (bilateral and unilateral) | Cross-sectional observational study | 50 | 7.2 |
40 % (unilateral) 53 % (bilateral) |
| Smith-Olinde et al. [28] | USA | Permanent childhood hearing loss | Cochlear implant | Cross-sectional study | 146 | 7.3 (SD 1.9) | 48.5 % |
SD standard deviation, ACHA used air-conduction hearing aid, CBHA conventional bone-conduction hearing aid, VAS Visual Analogue Scale, TTO Time trade-off, HUI3 Health Utility Index 3, N/R not report
* Involve deaf children and their parents