Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T22:24:22.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the low uptake of bone-anchored hearing aids: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2017

R Powell ,
A Wearden ,
S M Pardesi  and
K Green
R Powell*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences & Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, UK
A Wearden
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences & Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, UK
S M Pardesi
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences & Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, UK
K Green
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester Foundation Trust, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr R Powell, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK E-mail: rachael.powell@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Bone-anchored hearing aids improve hearing for patients for whom conventional behind-the-ear aids are problematic. However, uptake of bone-anchored hearing aids is low and it is important to understand why this is the case.

Method:

A narrative review was conducted. Studies examining why people accept or decline bone-anchored hearing aids and satisfaction levels of people with bone-anchored hearing aids were reviewed.

Results:

Reasons for declining bone-anchored hearing aids included limited perceived benefits, concerns about surgery, aesthetic concerns and treatment cost. No studies providing in-depth analysis of the reasons for declining or accepting bone-anchored hearing aids were identified. Studies of patient satisfaction showed that most participants reported benefits with bone-anchored hearing aids. However, most studies used cross-sectional and/or retrospective designs and only included people with bone-anchored hearing aids.

Conclusion:

Important avenues for further research are in-depth qualitative research designed to fully understand the decision-making process for bone-anchored hearing aids and rigorous quantitative research comparing satisfaction of people who receive bone-anchored hearing aids with those who receive alternative (or no) treatments.

Keywords

Hearing AidsBone-Anchored Hearing AidsPatient SatisfactionDecision MakingHearing LossCorrection of Hearing Impairment

Information

Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 190 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Action on Hearing Loss, 2011. Bone conduction hearing aids. In: http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/supporting-you/factsheets-and-leaflets/hearing-aids.aspx [31 July 2015]Google Scholar
2 Snik, A, Mylanus, E, Proops, D, Wolfaardt, J, Hodgetts, W, Somers, T et al. Consensus statements on the BAHA system: where do we stand at present? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2005;195:2–12 Google Scholar
3 NHS Commissioning Board Clinical Reference Group for Specialised Ear surgery. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Bone Anchored Hearing Aids. In: http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/d09-p-a.pdf [31 July 2015]Google Scholar
4 Ear Community. BAHA Cost and Insurance Information. In: http://earcommunity.com/hearing-loss/baha-technology/baha-cost-and-insurance-information/ [29 January 2016]Google Scholar
5 Siau, D, Dhillon, B, Andrews, R, Green, KMJ. Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them? J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:321–5Google Scholar
6 Siau, RTK, Dhillon, B, Siau, D, Green, KMJ. Bone-anchored hearing aids in conductive and mixed hearing losses: why do patients reject them? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:3117–22Google Scholar
7 Andersen, HT, Schrøder, SA, Bonding, P. Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:809–14Google Scholar
8 Schrøder, SA, Ravn, T, Bonding, P. BAHA in single-sided deafness: patient compliance and subjective benefit. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:404–8Google Scholar
9 Zawawi, F, Kabbach, G, Lallemand, M, Daniel, SJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: why do some patients refuse it? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:232–4Google Scholar
10 Burkey, JM, Berenholz, LP, Lippy, WH. Latent demand for the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Lippy Group experience. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:648–52Google Scholar
11 Kompis, M, Pfiffner, F, Krebs, M, Caversaccio, MD. Factors influencing the decision for Baha in unilateral deafness: the Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaire. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2011;71:103–11Google Scholar
12 Håkansson, B, Líden, G, Tjellström, A, Ringdahl, A, Jacobsson, M, Carlsson, P et al. Ten years of experience with the Swedish bone-anchored hearing system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1990;151:1–16 Google Scholar
13 Snik, AFM, Jorritsma, FF, Cremers, CWRJ, Beynon, AJ, van den Berge, NW. The super-bass bone-anchored hearing aid compared to conventional hearing aids. Audiological results and the patients’ opinions. Scand Audiol 1992;21:157–61Google Scholar
14 Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 1957 Google Scholar
15 Jonas, E, Schulz-Hardt, S, Frey, D, Thelen, N. Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;80:557–71Google Scholar
16 Hart, W, Albarracín, D, Eagly, AH, Brechan, I, Lindberg, MJ, Merrill, L. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol Bull 2009;135:555–88Google Scholar
17 Nelissen, RC, Mylanus, EAM, Cremers, CWRJ, Hol, MKS, Snik, AFM. Long-term compliance and satisfaction with percutaneous bone conduction devices in patients with congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2015;36:826–33Google Scholar
18 House, JW, Kutz, JW Jr., Chung, J, Fisher, LM. Bone-anchored hearing aid subjective benefit for unilateral deafness. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:601–7Google Scholar
19 Gatehouse, S, Noble, W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004;43:85–99 Google Scholar
20 Pai, I, Kelleher, C, Nunn, T, Pathak, N, Jindal, M, O'Connor, AF et al. Outcome of bone-anchored hearing aids for single-sided deafness: a prospective study. Acta Otolaryngol 2012;132:751–5Google Scholar
21 Niparko, JK, Cox, KM, Lustig, LR. Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:73–8Google Scholar
22 Hol, MK, Bosman, AJ, Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral inner ear deafness: a study of 20 patients. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:274–81Google Scholar
23 Cox, RM, Alexander, GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995;16:176–86Google Scholar
24 Hol, MK, Bosman, AJ, Snik, AF, Mylaus, EA, Cremers, CW. Bone-anchored hearing aids in unilateral inner ear deafness: an evaluation of audiometric and outcome measurements. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:999–1006 Google Scholar
25 Gatehouse, S. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 1999;10:80–103 Google Scholar
26 Hol, MK, Spath, MA, Krabbe, PF, van der Pouw, CT, Snik, AF, Cremers, CW et al. The bone anchored hearing aid: quality of life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394–9Google Scholar
27 Brooks, R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72 Google Scholar
28 Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83Google Scholar
29 Ventry, IM, Weinstein, B. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 1982;3:128–34Google Scholar
30 Powell, RH, Burrell, SP, Cooper, HR, Proops, DW. The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: paediatric experience and results. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110(suppl 21):21–9Google Scholar
31 Newman, CW, Sandridge, SA, Wodzisz, LM. Longitudinal benefit from and satisfation with the BAHA system for patients with acquired unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1123–31Google Scholar
32 Wazen, JJ, Spitzer, J, Ghossaini, SN, Kacker, A, Zschommler, A. Results of the bone-anchored hearing aid in unilateral hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2001;111:955–8Google Scholar
33 Mylanus, EAM, Snik, AFM, Cremers, CWRJ. Patients’ opinions of bone-anchored vs conventional hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:421–5Google Scholar
34 Hol, MK, Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA, Cremers, CW. Long-term results of bone-anchored hearing aid wearers who had previously used air-conduction hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:321–5Google Scholar
35 Mylanus, EAM, van der Pouw, CTM, Snik, AFM, Cremers, CWRJ. Intraindividual comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid and air-conduction hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:271–6Google Scholar
36 Badran, K, Bunstone, D, Arya, AK, Suryanarayanan, R, Mackinnon, N. Patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: a 14-year experience. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:659–66Google Scholar
37 Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Day to day use and service-related issues with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Entific Medical Systems questionnaire. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(suppl 28):20–8Google Scholar
38 Bance, M, Abel, SM, Papsin, BC, Wade, P, Vendramini, J. A comparison of the audiometric performance of bone anchored hearing aids and air conduction hearing aids. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:912–19Google Scholar
39 Sanders, DA. Hearing aid orientation and counseling. In: Pollack, MC, ed. Amplification for the Hearing Impaired. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1975:343–91Google Scholar
40 The MOS SF-36 Health Survey. Boston: Medical Outcomes Trust, 1994 Google Scholar
41 Barbara, M, Biagini, M, Lazzarino, AI, Monini, S. Hearing and quality of life in a south European BAHA population. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:1040–7Google Scholar
42 Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, G. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–22Google Scholar
43 de Wolf, MJF, Leijendeckers, JM, Mylanus, EAM, Hol, MKS, Snik, AFM, Cremers, CWRJ. Age-related use and benefit of the bone-anchored hearing aid compact. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:787–92Google Scholar
44 Kramer, S, Goverts, S, Dreschler, W, Boymans, M, Festen, JM. International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from the Netherlands. Int J Audiol 2002;41:36–41 Google Scholar
45 de Wolf, MJF, Shival, M-LC, Hol, MKS, Mylanus, EAM, Cremers, CWRJ, Snik, AFM. Benefit and quality of life in older bone-anchored hearing aid users. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:766–72Google Scholar
46 Hinderink, JB, Krabbe, PF, Van Den, BP. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:756–65Google Scholar
47 Dutt, SN, McDermott, A-L, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol 2002;2002(suppl 28):7–14 Google Scholar
48 Dutt, SN, McDermott, AL, Burrell, SP, Cooper, HR, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. Patient satisfaction with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(suppl 28):37–46 Google Scholar
49 McDermott, AL, Dutt, SN, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. An intra-individual comparison of the previous conventional hearing aid with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Nijmegen group questionnaire. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(suppl 28):15–19 Google Scholar
50 Fuchsmann, C, Tringali, S, Disant, F, Buiret, G, Dubreuil, C, Froehlich, P et al. Hearing rehabilitation in congenital aural atresia using the bone-anchored hearing aid: audiological and satisfaction results. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:1343–51Google Scholar
51 Gardell, ISK, Andresen, K, Faber, CE, Wanscher, JH. Bone-anchored hearing aids are effective and associated with a high degree of satisfaction. Dan Med J 2015;62:A5108.Google Scholar
52 Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living (SADL). In: www.harlmephis.org/index.php/clinical-applications/sadl/ [15 December 2015]Google Scholar
53 Rasmussen, J, Olsen, SO, Nielsen, LH. Evaluation of long-term patient satisfaction and experience with the Baha® bone conduction implant. Int J Audiol 2012;51:194–9Google Scholar
54 Gillett, D, Fairley, JW, Chandrashaker, TS, Bean, A, Gonzalez, J. Bone-anchored hearing aids: results of the first eight years of a programme in a district general hospital, assessed by the Glasgow benefit inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:537–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 Proops, DW. The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: surgical methods and complications. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 1996;110 (Suppl21):7–12 Google Scholar
56 Ho, EC, Monksfield, P, Egan, E, Reid, A, Proops, D. Bone-anchored hearing aid: patient satisfaction with the Cordelle device. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:793–9Google Scholar
57 Mace, ATM, Isa, A, Cooke, LD. Patient quality of life with bone-anchored hearing aid: 10-year experience in Glasgow, Scotland. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:964–8Google Scholar
58 McLarnon, CM, Davison, T, Johnson, IJ. Bone-anchored hearing aid: comparison of benefit by patient subgroups. Laryngoscope 2004;114:942–4Google Scholar
59 McNeil, ML, Gulliver, M, Morris, DP, Bance, M. Quality of life improvement for bone-anchored hearing aid users and their partners. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:554–60Google Scholar
60 Nelissen, RC, Mylanus, EAM, Kunst, HPM, Pennings, RJE, Snik, AFM, Hol, MKS. A new bone-anchored hearing implant: short-term retrospective data on implant survival and subjective benefit. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:3019–25Google Scholar
61 Saroul, N, Gilain, L, Montalban, A, Giraudet, F, Avan, P, Mom, T. Patient satisfaction and functional results with the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA). Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2011;128:107–13Google Scholar
62 Stephens, D, Board, T, Hobson, J, Cooper, H. Reported benefits and problems experienced with bone-anchored hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1996;30:215–20Google Scholar
63 Stephens, SDG, Meredith, R. Qualitative reports of hearing aid benefit. Clin Rehabil 1991;5:225–9Google Scholar
64 Tjellström, A, Håkansson, B. The bone-anchored hearing aid. Design principles, indications, and long-term clinical results. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:53–72 Google Scholar
65 Tringali, S, Grayeli, AB, Bouccara, D, Sterkers, O, Chardon, S, Martin, C et al. A survey of satisfaction and use among patients fitted with a BAHA. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1461–4Google Scholar
66 Wazen, JJ, Young, DL, Farrugia, MC, Chandrasekhar, SS, Ghossaini, SN, Borik, J et al. Successes and complications of the Baha system. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1115–19Google Scholar