Aim: Best-practice in audiological rehabilitation takes a holistic client- and family-centred approach and considers hearing care in the context of personal well-being. Hearing loss not only impairs the ability to hear, but can also compromise the ability to communicate, thus negatively impacting both social and emotional well-being. Hearing care professionals play a key role in fostering their client’s well-being. This paper aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to ensure inclusion of social-emotional well-being in audiologic rehabilitation clinical practice. Methods: A review of current research and expert opinion. Results: This guide proposes a 5-step plan which includes: identifying the client’s social-emotional well-being; including family members in audiological rehabilitation; incorporating social-emotional needs and goals in an individualized management plan; relating identified hearing needs and goals to rehabilitation recommendations; and using counselling skills and techniques to explore and monitor social-emotional well-being. Each component of the 5-step plan is discussed and clinical considerations are presented. Conclusion: These comprehensive recommendations provide guidance to hearing care professionals looking to ensure clients’ social-emotional well-being are considered throughout the rehabilitation journey.

Purpose: This research assessed the feasibility and construct validity of ecological momentary assessment in capturing the hearing experiences of adults with mild hearing impairment in natural environments. Method: Twenty-nine adults between the ages of 55 and 79 years ( M = 69 years) answered multiple surveys on a smartphone app over a 2-week trial. Participants also wore 1 environmental classifier and a streamer allowing bidirectional communication between smartphone and classifier. Surveys were triggered based on defined criteria, or by the participants. A paper-based self-report questionnaire was administered before and after the trial. Results: Feasibility was indicated by high compliance rates, with a total of 1,128 surveys completed. Of these, 72% were completed during a listening event, 26% within 1 hr, and only 2% of the surveys more than 1 hr after the listening event. The mean survey completion time was 1 min 40 s. Mean pre- and post-trial self-report scores were not significantly different, indicating no reactivity. Construct validity was indicated by the close agreement between subjective ratings of listening situations and objective data from the hearing aid classifier. Conclusions: Ecological momentary assessment is a feasible and valid research methodology for older adults with mild hearing impairment. The methodology has potential as a clinical counseling and outcome tool.

Acquired hearing impairment is recognized by the World Health Organization as the third leading cause of disability, with a mild impairment being the most prevalent. The aim of this study was to review research literature concerned with adults with acquired mild hearing impairment; the definitions and prevalence, the resulting activity limitations and participation restrictions, and hearing-aid interventions. This study involved a systematized review of research literature identified through searches in citation databases and through reference checking. A total of 151 papers were identified and of these, 33 papers were included in this review. Prevalence rates are significantly influenced by the definition used for mild hearing impairment, and range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 adults. The weak correlations between audiological assessments and self-reported difficulties suggest that further assessment of individuals with mild hearing impairment is warranted. The most common intervention is the provision of hearing aids with varying rates of use, benefit, and satisfaction. The development of appropriate audiological assessment in the clinic, and further evaluation of the real-world listening needs and performance of people with mild hearing impairment is required to provide a more effective pathway for this clinical population.

Hearing loss in the older adult population is a significant global health issue. Hearing aids can provide an effective means to address hearing loss and improve quality of life. Despite this, the uptake and continued use of hearing aids is low, with non-use of hearing aids representing a significant problem for effective audiological rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for the non-use of hearing aids. A cross-sectional survey was used to investigate the reasons given for the non-use of hearing aids by people with hearing loss (n = 332) and family members (n = 313) of people with hearing loss in Australia, the UK, and USA. Survey results showed that hearing aid non-users generally cited external factors as reasons for non-use, whereas family members reported non-use due to attitudinal barriers. Past users of hearing aids and family members of past users both identified devices factors as barriers to use. Differences in reasons for non-use may provide further insight for researchers and clinicians and help inform future clinical practice in addressing the low uptake and use of hearing aids by people with hearing loss and the role of family members in audiological rehabilitation.

Objective: This study explored staff perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to improving the implementation of family-centred care (FCC) in audiology practice. Design: Semi-structured interviews, informed by the COM-B (Capability–Opportunity–Motivation–Behaviour) model, were conducted with staff members at a private hearing care company in Australia. Study Sample: Thirteen participants were interviewed including managers, clinicians, and front-of-house staff. Results: Staff with different roles had different perspectives on barriers; however, the main barriers included: (1) insufficient knowledge regarding the principles of FCC and its benefits; (2) insufficient knowledge regarding the reasons why a family member should attend the appointment; (3) inadequate skills in how to ask for family member attendance; (4) experiencing discomfort when asking clients to bring a family member to their appointment; (5) inconsistent training and tools to support the implementation of FCC; (6) organisational culture not supporting FCC; and (7) a lack of confidence in abilities to manage conflict between clients and family members within appointments. Conclusions: The study indicated that there were numerous barriers to be overcome for staff to further implement FCC into their current practice. The interview findings will be used to develop an intervention to improve the implementation of FCC in audiology practice.