Summary of findings for the main comparison. Self‐management support interventions for adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids.
| Self‐management support interventions for adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids Settings: outpatient clinic Intervention: self‐management support interventions | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Self‐management support interventions | |||||
| Adherence | No studies identified | |||||
| Daily hours of hearing aid use | Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta‐analysis | |||||
| Adverse effects | No studies identified | |||||
| Quality of life Validated self‐report measures. WHODAS 2.0 scale from: 0 to 100 Follow‐up: 0 to 12 months | The mean quality of life in the intervention group was 9.1 lower (21.33 lower to 3.13 higher) than in the control group (on this generic health‐related quality of life scale (WHODAS 2.0) a lower score indicates better quality of life) | — | 35 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | The minimal important difference on this scale has not been established for hearing health care. | |
| Self‐reported hearing handicap Validated self‐report measure: HHIE (Ventry 1982) scale from 0 to 100 Follow‐up: 0 to 12 months | The mean self‐reported hearing handicap in the intervention groups was 12.80 lower (23.11 lower to 2.48 lower) than in the control groups (lower score indicates less handicap) | — | 87 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2 | The minimal important difference on this scale is reported to be 18.7 for face‐to face administration and 36 for pencil and paper (Weinstein 1986). | |
| Hearing aid benefit | No studies identified | |||||
|
Communication Validated self‐report measure: verbal subscale of the CPHI (Demorest 1987) scale from 0 to 5 Follow‐up: 0 to 12 months |
The mean reported use of verbal communication strategy in the intervention group was 0.72 higher (0.21 higher to 1.23 higher) than in the control group (higher score indicates increased use of verbal communication strategy) | — | 52 (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3 | The minimal important difference for this subscale of the CPHI is 0.93 at the 0.05 level (Demorest 1988). | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; CPHI: Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired; RR: risk ratio; WHODAS 2.0: World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Downgraded due to very serious concerns regarding limitations in study design (risk of bias), indirectness (participants were military veterans and only short‐ to medium‐term outcomes were available) and serious concerns regarding imprecision (single study with small sample size). 2Downgraded due to very serious concerns regarding limitations in study design (risk of bias) and serious concerns due to indirectness (only short‐ to medium‐term outcomes available) and imprecision (two small studies with a high risk of skewed data). 3Downgraded due to very serious concerns regarding limitations in study design (risk of bias) and serious concerns due to indirectness (only short‐ to medium‐term outcomes available) and imprecision (single study with small sample size).