This project is no longer listed on FindAPhD.com and may not be available.
Click here to search FindAPhD.com for PhD studentship opportunities(MBRC) Widening uptake and adherence to treatment with hearing aids via a new model of service delivery
Prof K Munro, Dr Michael Stone, Prof Harvey Dillon, Dr D Moore
No more applications being accepted
Funded PhD Project (European/UK Students Only)
About the Project
The average age of first-time wearers of hearing aids dispensed by the NHS is 74 years, by which time candidates typically have a moderate hearing loss and are struggling in many listening situations. Corrected sensory losses reduce handicap, improve quality of life, reduce the number of years lived with a disability and are associated with better physical health (Dawes et al., 2015). Earlier adoption of aiding, when the hearing loss is milder in degree, has the potential to produce better outcomes.
“Over-the-counter” devices (OTCs) are simpler, more affordable hearing aids available without a prescription. They may promote earlier adoption by being more accessible and reducing the stigma often associated with conventional hearing aids (cHAs). Here, we distinguish OTCs from other types of “personal sound amplification products” (PSAPs), multi-function, in-the-ear devices (“hearables”), and software implemented on a smartphone. These latter devices amplify sound but do not compensate for hearing loss, and/or are not conveniently wearable on the head. Although OTCs are much cheaper to acquire than cHAs, some amplify sound in much the same manner, so there is the potential for them to work as well, and limited research partially supports this claim (Humes et al., 2017). Nevertheless, questions remain as to their technical efficacy and suitability (Chan & McPherson, 2015), acceptability, and success rates as measured by adherence and other outcome measures. Interest in OTCs has also been driven by pressure to reduce costs from health service commissioners by limiting the provision of conventional hearing aids and reducing contact with medical professionals. Self-funding and self-fitting of simpler devices (Humes et al., 2017), such as OTCs, may therefore become the delivery method for at least some patients as an interim intervention before a hearing loss becomes more severe.
This PhD will explore factors that determine the acceptability of OTCs compared to hearing aids. These factors are likely to be multiple and complex and may include cosmetic, functional, client-oriented (age, personality, health literacy, familiarity with technology), and service delivery (professional support) issues.
“Over-the-counter” devices (OTCs) are simpler, more affordable hearing aids available without a prescription. They may promote earlier adoption by being more accessible and reducing the stigma often associated with conventional hearing aids (cHAs). Here, we distinguish OTCs from other types of “personal sound amplification products” (PSAPs), multi-function, in-the-ear devices (“hearables”), and software implemented on a smartphone. These latter devices amplify sound but do not compensate for hearing loss, and/or are not conveniently wearable on the head. Although OTCs are much cheaper to acquire than cHAs, some amplify sound in much the same manner, so there is the potential for them to work as well, and limited research partially supports this claim (Humes et al., 2017). Nevertheless, questions remain as to their technical efficacy and suitability (Chan & McPherson, 2015), acceptability, and success rates as measured by adherence and other outcome measures. Interest in OTCs has also been driven by pressure to reduce costs from health service commissioners by limiting the provision of conventional hearing aids and reducing contact with medical professionals. Self-funding and self-fitting of simpler devices (Humes et al., 2017), such as OTCs, may therefore become the delivery method for at least some patients as an interim intervention before a hearing loss becomes more severe.
This PhD will explore factors that determine the acceptability of OTCs compared to hearing aids. These factors are likely to be multiple and complex and may include cosmetic, functional, client-oriented (age, personality, health literacy, familiarity with technology), and service delivery (professional support) issues.
Funding Notes
Applicants must have obtained, or be about to obtain, at least an upper second class honours degree (or equivalent) in a relevant subject.
Applicants must be from the UK/EU and funding covers fees/stipend for three years commencing January 2019 or April 2019. Applicants may contact the Primary Supervisor directly with any questions. Online applications must be submitted, select 'Manchester BRC' as the programme - for more information on how to apply please visit https://www.bmh.manchester.ac.uk/study/research/funded-programmes/mbrc-studentships/
Applicants must be from the UK/EU and funding covers fees/stipend for three years commencing January 2019 or April 2019. Applicants may contact the Primary Supervisor directly with any questions. Online applications must be submitted, select 'Manchester BRC' as the programme - for more information on how to apply please visit https://www.bmh.manchester.ac.uk/study/research/funded-programmes/mbrc-studentships/
References
1. Chan ZYT & McPherson, B (2015) Over-the-counter hearing aids: a lost decade for change. Biomed Research International, Article ID 827463.
2. Dawes P, Cruickshanks KJ, Fischer ME, Klein EK, Klein R (2015) Hearing-aid use and long-term health outcomes: Hearing handicap, mental health, social engagement, cognitive function, physical health, and mortality. Int J Audiol 54:838–844
3. Humes LE, Rogers SE, QuigleyTM, Main AK, Kinney DL, Herring C (2017). The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Amer J Audiol 26:53-79.
4. Manchaiah V, Taylor B, Dockens AL, Tran NR, Lane K, Castle M, Grover V (2017). Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review. Clin Interv Aging 12:859-871.
5. MacPherson A, Akeroyd MA (2014). A method for measuring the intelligibility of uninterrupted, continuous speech. JASA 135:1027-1030.
2. Dawes P, Cruickshanks KJ, Fischer ME, Klein EK, Klein R (2015) Hearing-aid use and long-term health outcomes: Hearing handicap, mental health, social engagement, cognitive function, physical health, and mortality. Int J Audiol 54:838–844
3. Humes LE, Rogers SE, QuigleyTM, Main AK, Kinney DL, Herring C (2017). The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Amer J Audiol 26:53-79.
4. Manchaiah V, Taylor B, Dockens AL, Tran NR, Lane K, Castle M, Grover V (2017). Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review. Clin Interv Aging 12:859-871.
5. MacPherson A, Akeroyd MA (2014). A method for measuring the intelligibility of uninterrupted, continuous speech. JASA 135:1027-1030.
Continue with Facebook