Abstract
Introduction Access to ear and hearing health services are limited or non-existent in low-income countries, with less than 10% of the global production of hearing aids is distributed to this population. The aim of this feasibility study was to compare the outcomes of an ultra-low-cost hearing aid (LoCHAid) to programmable, refurbished hearing aids for adults with high-frequency hearing loss, in Blantyre, Malawi.
Methods Sixteen adults with high frequency hearing loss, and no prior experience of hearing aids, took part in this study, nine were fitted with the LoCHAid and seven were fitted with refurbished, programmable hearing aids, for a one-month trial. Five standardized hearing qualities questionnaires were used to compare outcomes pre and post device fitting and between devices. Questionnaire scales were analysed using general linear models and inductive thematic analysis was used to evaluate qualitative data.
Results Overall, there was no significant difference found between LoCHAid and refurbished hearing aids, and the two device types each showed a similar degree of improvement after fitting. Qualitative data identified two key themes: Sound Quality and User experience.
Conclusion The results from this feasibility study are encouraging, but a comprehensive, larger clinical study is needed to draw firm conclusions about the LoCHAid’s performance. This study has identified key improvement indicators required to enhance sound quality and user experience of the LoCHAid.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Global Development Incubator
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Malawian College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (COMREC) (P.07/20/3091). Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the intervention was received. An information sheet was given to the participants, which outlined the purposes of the study. This was also summarized verbally before written consent was obtained.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
