Abstract
IntroductionCurrent literature does not provide strong evidence that remote programming of hearing aids is effective, despite its increasing use by audiologists. We tested speech perception outcomes, real-ear insertion gain, and changes in self-perceived hearing impairment after face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids in a randomized multicentre, single-blind crossover study.MethodsAdult experienced hearing aid users were enrolled during routine follow-up visits to audiology clinics. Hearing aids were programmed both face to face and remotely, then participants randomly received either the face-to-face or remote settings in a blinded manner and were evaluated 5 weeks later. Participants then received the other settings and were evaluated 5 weeks later.ResultsData from 52 out of 60 participants were analysed. We found excellent concordance in performance of hearing aids programmed face to face and remotely for speech understanding in quiet (phonetically balanced kindergarten test – intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.87–0.95)), and good concordance in performance for speech understanding in noise (phonetically balanced kindergarten +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio – intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.55–0.82)). Face-to-face and remote programming took 10 minutes (±2.9) and 10 minutes (±2.8), respectively. Real-ear insertion gains were highly correlated for input sound at 50, 65 and 80 dB sound pressure levels. The programming type did not affect the abbreviated profile of hearing aid questionnaire scores.ConclusionsIn experienced hearing aid users, face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids give similar results in terms of speech perception, with no increase in the time spent on patients’ care and no difference in self-reported hearing benefit.