Schooling, Tracy

Background: Hearing loss poses a significant public health challenge as a common chronic condition with many known side effects that are often worse when left untreated. Aural rehabilitation (AR) is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of interventions (e.g., informational counseling and perceptual training) designed to reduce deficits related to hearing loss that may stand alone or be used in combination as part of a holistic plan. Purpose: This evidence-based clinical practice guideline is intended to inform the implementation of person-centered AR to adults with hearing loss. Given the well-known benefits of sensory management, it was not included within the scope of this guideline. The recommendations aim to help clinicians, individuals with hearing loss, and other stakeholders make evidence-informed treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes, as well as provide payers and policymakers with information detailing a comprehensive approach to AR. Method: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and a multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts prioritized key clinical questions and outcomes that served as the foundation of the guideline. The clinical recommendations were based on a comprehensive systematic review and a meta-analysis of 85 studies published between 1978 and 2021. Recommendations: Given the current state of the evidence, resource considerations, patient acceptability, clinical feasibility, and the overall balance of benefits and harms, ASHA developed several evidence-based recommendations for the provision of AR to adults with hearing loss. Each recommendation is accompanied by a series of key practice points to support its implementation within a person-centered framework.

PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to examine the current evidence for the use of oral motor exercises (OMEs) on speech (i.e., speech physiology, speech production, and functional speech outcomes) as a means of supporting further research and clinicians' use of evidence-based practice.MethodThe peer-reviewed literature from 1960 to 2007 was searched for articles examining the use of OMEs to affect speech physiology, production, or functional outcomes (i.e., intelligibility). Articles that met selection criteria were appraised by 2 reviewers and vetted by a 3rd for methodological quality, then characterized as efficacy or exploratory studies.ResultsFifteen studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 8 included data relevant to the effects of OMEs on speech physiology, 8 on speech production, and 8 on functional speech outcomes. Considerable variation was noted in the participants, interventions, and treatment schedules. The critical appraisals identified significant weaknesses in almost all studies.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence to support or refute the use of OMEs to produce effects on speech was found in the research literature. Discussion is largely confined to a consideration of the need for more well-designed studies using well-described participant groups and alternative bases for evidence-based practice.