Hard of HearingPhase 2NCT00105742
Audiology Visits After Screening for Hearing Loss: An RCT
A Phase 2 study testing Diagnosis in people with Hard of Hearing, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Hearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in veterans. The decreased ability to communicate is troubling in itself, but the strong association of hearing loss with functional decline and depression adds further to the burden on the hearing-impaired. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Hard of Hearing
- What is being tested?
- Diagnosis
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,400 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Start not givento Jun 2005
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Hearing impaired
Who cannot join
- Not Hearing Impaired
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Seattle, WA
Seattle, Washington, 98108
About this study
Hearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in veterans. The decreased ability to communicate is troubling in itself, but the strong association of hearing loss with functional decline and depression adds further to the burden on the hearing-impaired. Although hearing amplification improves quality of life, hearing evaluations are offered infrequently to older patients. Only 25 percent of patients with aidable hearing loss receive treatment. Up to 30 percent of patients who receive hearing aids do not use them. We contend that an effective formal screening program should identify hearing-impaired patients who are motivated to seek evaluation and who derive benefit from treatment.
Read the detailed description
Background:
Hearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in veterans. The decreased ability to communicate is troubling in itself, but the strong association of hearing loss with functional decline and depression adds further to the burden on the hearing-impaired. Although hearing amplification improves quality of life, hearing evaluations are offered infrequently to older patients. Only 25 percent of patients with aidable hearing loss receive treatment. Up to 30 percent of patients who receive hearing aids do not use them. We contend that an effective formal screening program should identify hearing-impaired patients who are motivated to seek evaluation and who derive benefit from treatment.
Objectives:
The first specific aim is to determine if formal screening programs for hearing loss can increase visits to audiologists. The second specific aim is to determine which specific screening strategy leads to the most frequent audiology visits.
Methods:
Our four-armed randomized clinical trial compares three screening strategies (physiologic testing, a self-report questionnaire, and combined use of both physiologic and self-report testing), against a control arm (usual care). Physiologic testing was done with the Audioscope, a portable otoscope that emits tones from selected frequencies at a variety of loudness levels. The self-report questionnaire was the screening version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory of the Elderly questionnaire (HHIE-S), which quantifies the social and emotional handicap from hearing loss. Patients aged 50 and older who did not wear hearing aids were recruited from the outpatient clinics at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. Only patients who were eligible for VA-issued hearing aids were enrolled in this trial. Patients randomized to the control arm were not screened. Patients screened with both the Audioscope and HHIE-S were referred to the audiology service for evaluation if either of the tests was positive. All patients, regardless of screening status, were followed to determine how many patients in each arm subsequently visit an audiologist.
The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who contact the audiology service within 6 months of the date of screening. Secondary outcomes include: 1) the number of cases of hearing loss detected; 2) the number of dispensed hearing aids; 3) self-rated communication ability; 4) hearing-related quality of life; and 5) rates of hearing aid adherence. Costs of screening and subsequent treatment were collected. The study is not powered to determine cost-effectiveness, but to pilot calculations of the costs to implement the screening program will be made. An intention-to-screen analysis will be used to minimize bias due to subject self-selection.
Status:
Enrollment and follow-up is complete. Outcomes data are currently being analyzed.
- Conditions
- Hard of Hearing
- Being tested
- Diagnosis
- Medical subject headings
- Hearing Loss
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DiagnosisProcedure or surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm 1 | Other | Not described Receives: Procedure: Diagnosis |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Better diagnois of hearing problems
Secondary outcomes (1)
Improved quality of life
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Mar 2005 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2005
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Hard of HearingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,400 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans Affairs
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Bevan Yueh, MD MPH, Principal investigator, VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Seattle, WA
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00105742
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IIR 99-377
- Status last verified
- Jul 2006
- First submitted
- 16 Mar 2005
- Last updated
- 7 Apr 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Collins MP, Souza PE, Yueh B. Effects of group versus individual hearing aid visits. Journal of The American Auditory Society. 2007 Mar 1; 31(1):34.
Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE. Effects of depression on self-report hearing outcomes. Journal of The American Auditory Society. 2007 Mar 1; 32(1):32.
Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, Heagerty PJ, Liu CF, Boyko EJ, Loovis CF, Fausti SA, Hedrick SC. Screening for Auditory Impairment-Which Hearing Assessment Test (SAI-WHAT): RCT design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 May;28(3):303-15. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.08.008. Epub 2006 Aug 30.
PubMed 17030153Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, Boyko EJ, Loovis CF, Heagerty PJ, Liu CF, Hedrick SC. Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment--which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Mar;58(3):427-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02738.x.
PubMed 20398111Yueh B, Shapiro N, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: scientific review. JAMA. 2003 Apr 16;289(15):1976-85. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.15.1976.
PubMed 12697801Bogardus ST Jr, Yueh B, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: clinical applications. JAMA. 2003 Apr 16;289(15):1986-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.15.1986.
PubMed 12697802Yueh B. Digital hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Nov;126(11):1394-7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.126.11.1394. No abstract available.
PubMed 11074842Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD. Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124(4):359-67. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2001.113945.
PubMed 11283492Yueh B, Souza PE, McDowell JA, Collins MP, Loovis CF, Hedrick SC, Ramsey SD, Deyo RA. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Oct;127(10):1197-204. doi: 10.1001/archotol.127.10.1197.
PubMed 11587599
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Apr 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Audiology Visits After Screening for Hearing Loss: An RCT
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00105742
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IIR 99-377
- Conditions
- Hard of Hearing
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,400 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans AffairsUS federal agency
- Study completion
- Jun 2005 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Mar 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Hearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in veterans. The decreased ability to communicate is troubling in itself, but the strong association of hearing loss with functional decline and depression adds further to the burden on the hearing-impaired. Although hearing amplification improves quality of life, hearing evaluations are offered infrequently to older patients. Only 25 percent of patients with aidable hearing loss receive treatment. Up to 30 percent of patients who receive hearing aids do not use them. We contend that an effective formal screening program should identify hearing-impaired patients who are motivated to seek evaluation and who derive benefit from treatment.
Detailed description
Background:
Hearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in veterans. The decreased ability to communicate is troubling in itself, but the strong association of hearing loss with functional decline and depression adds further to the burden on the hearing-impaired. Although hearing amplification improves quality of life, hearing evaluations are offered infrequently to older patients. Only 25 percent of patients with aidable hearing loss receive treatment. Up to 30 percent of patients who receive hearing aids do not use them. We contend that an effective formal screening program should identify hearing-impaired patients who are motivated to seek evaluation and who derive benefit from treatment.
Objectives:
The first specific aim is to determine if formal screening programs for hearing loss can increase visits to audiologists. The second specific aim is to determine which specific screening strategy leads to the most frequent audiology visits.
Methods:
Our four-armed randomized clinical trial compares three screening strategies (physiologic testing, a self-report questionnaire, and combined use of both physiologic and self-report testing), against a control arm (usual care). Physiologic testing was done with the Audioscope, a portable otoscope that emits tones from selected frequencies at a variety of loudness levels. The self-report questionnaire was the screening version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory of the Elderly questionnaire (HHIE-S), which quantifies the social and emotional handicap from hearing loss. Patients aged 50 and older who did not wear hearing aids were recruited from the outpatient clinics at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. Only patients who were eligible for VA-issued hearing aids were enrolled in this trial. Patients randomized to the control arm were not screened. Patients screened with both the Audioscope and HHIE-S were referred to the audiology service for evaluation if either of the tests was positive. All patients, regardless of screening status, were followed to determine how many patients in each arm subsequently visit an audiologist.
The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who contact the audiology service within 6 months of the date of screening. Secondary outcomes include: 1) the number of cases of hearing loss detected; 2) the number of dispensed hearing aids; 3) self-rated communication ability; 4) hearing-related quality of life; and 5) rates of hearing aid adherence. Costs of screening and subsequent treatment were collected. The study is not powered to determine cost-effectiveness, but to pilot calculations of the costs to implement the screening program will be made. An intention-to-screen analysis will be used to minimize bias due to subject self-selection.
Status:
Enrollment and follow-up is complete. Outcomes data are currently being analyzed.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm 1 | Other | Procedure: Diagnosis |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Hearing impaired
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Not Hearing Impaired
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis | Procedure or surgery | Arm 1 |
Primary outcome
Better diagnois of hearing problems
1 secondary outcome
Improved quality of life
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Apr 2015.
- Results publicationCollins MP, Souza PE, Yueh B. Effects of group versus individual hearing aid visits. Journal of The American Auditory Society. 2007 Mar 1; 31(1):34.
- Results publicationYueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE. Effects of depression on self-report hearing outcomes. Journal of The American Auditory Society. 2007 Mar 1; 32(1):32.
- Results publication: PubMed 17030153Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, Heagerty PJ, Liu CF, Boyko EJ, Loovis CF, Fausti SA, Hedrick SC. Screening for Auditory Impairment-Which Hearing Assessment Test (SAI-WHAT): RCT design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 May;28(3):303-15. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.08.008. Epub 2006 Aug 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 20398111Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, Boyko EJ, Loovis CF, Heagerty PJ, Liu CF, Hedrick SC. Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment--which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Mar;58(3):427-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02738.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 12697801Yueh B, Shapiro N, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: scientific review. JAMA. 2003 Apr 16;289(15):1976-85. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.15.1976.
- Results publication: PubMed 12697802Bogardus ST Jr, Yueh B, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: clinical applications. JAMA. 2003 Apr 16;289(15):1986-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.15.1986.
- Results publication: PubMed 11074842Yueh B. Digital hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Nov;126(11):1394-7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.126.11.1394. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 11283492Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD. Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124(4):359-67. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2001.113945.
- Results publication: PubMed 11587599Yueh B, Souza PE, McDowell JA, Collins MP, Loovis CF, Hedrick SC, Ramsey SD, Deyo RA. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Oct;127(10):1197-204. doi: 10.1001/archotol.127.10.1197.
Related trials for Hard of Hearing
RecruitingObservational study
Impact of Vestibular Function on Deaf Infants' Activities of Daily Living
Vestibular Dysfunction, Hearing Loss
Recruiting
HEARS-NPS: Addressing Hearing Loss as a Common Unmet Contributor of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms
Alzheimer Disease, Dementia
Not yet recruiting
Hearing Intervention Effects on Brain and Language Development in Children With Bilateral Mild Hearing Loss
Hearing Loss, Bilateral
RecruitingObservational study
Natural History of Autosomal Dominant Hearing Loss
Hearing Loss
RecruitingObservational study
Retrospective Analysis of Speech Performance Using the HiRes Ultra and HiRes Ultra 3D Cochlear Implant
Cochlear Hearing Loss
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bevan Yueh, MD MPH principal investigator
VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Seattle, WA
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Diagnosis in people with Hard of Hearing, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Apr 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Better diagnois of hearing problems. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00105742, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Apr 2015.