Factors influencing patient decisions for bone-anchored hearing aid V7
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Exploring factors that influence patient decisions to accept or reject bone-anchored hearing aids
IRAS ID
195005
Contact name
Alison Wearden
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
The University of Manchester
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 26 days
Research summary
Bone anchored hearings aids are an effective treatment for people with hearing impairments who cannot use conventional behind-the-ear hearing aids. A sounds processor clips on to a titanium fixture that has been surgically attached to the skull. This allows sounds to travel through the skull to the inner ear.
Previous research has shown that people who have the bone anchored hearing aid are highly satisfied with the device. However, it has also been found in other studies that approximately 30% of patients who would be eligible for the bone anchored hearing aid go on to have one. This means that around 70% of eligible patients choose not to have the bone anchored hearing aid.
The reasons for patients rejecting the bone anchored hearing aid have been investigated in previous research. These studies looked at any reasons noted down by health care professionals in patients’ clinical notes. The reported reasons for turning down the bone anchored hearing aid were wide ranging. They included cosmetic reasons, concerns about surgery, feeling that the benefits were limited and the cost of the procedure. However, making a decision about treatment options is a complex process and would not be adequately captured in clinical patient notes.
This study will use telephone interviews to understand what influences patient decisions to have the bone anchored hearing aid. Interviews will be with people who have recently chosen to have, or not have the bone anchored hearing aid. Using this method of interviews will provide more detailed insights into how people make this decision. A better understanding into this issue will help health care professionals to provide the most relevant information and support to patients.REC name
North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/NW/0249
Date of REC Opinion
23 Mar 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion