面对面与引导式互联网模式提供的听力康复特定组成部分对成人听力损失患者生活质量的影响：系统综述与荟萃分析
Effect of selected components of aural rehabilitation delivered in-person versus guided internet-based modalities on quality of life in adults with hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
文献信息
| PMID | 42804507 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Gudambe Nellithaya Spoorthi |
| 作者单位 | Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India. |
| 期刊 | International journal of audiology |
| SCI 分区 | Q2 |
| IF | 2.3 |
| 研究类型 | 综述 Meta · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 本系统综述与荟萃分析比较了面对面与引导式互联网模式提供的听力康复特定组成部分对成人获得性听力损失患者生活质量（QoL）的影响。
设计： 检索了截至2025年8月在科学数据库——PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus和Web of Science中发表的文章。检索策略使用与听力康复、线下、线上、互联网、远程听力学、听力损失和成人相关的术语构建，并根据各数据库的主题词和语法进行了调整。
研究样本： 在检索到的6,646项研究中，49项符合纳入标准。
结果： 本系统综述纳入49项研究，其中12项被纳入荟萃分析。面对面听力康复显示出中等效应量，而基于互联网的听力康复在听力相关生活质量指标方面显示出较小但具有统计学意义的改善。在健康相关生活质量方面，只有基于互联网的听力康复而非面对面听力康复显示出小的、具有统计学意义的改善。
结论： 这些发现表明，成人听力损失患者在听力相关生活质量结局方面可从面对面和基于互联网的听力康复中获益。需要更多研究来了解听力康复的特定组成部分在改善成人听力损失患者健康相关生活质量方面的有效性。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of specific components of aural rehabilitation delivered in-person and guided internet-based modalities on the quality of life (QoL) of adults with acquired hearing loss.
DESIGN: Articles published up to August 2025 in scientific databases- PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. A search strategy was built using terms associated with aural rehabilitation, offline, online, internet, tele-audiology, hearing loss, and adults and was tailored to the subject headings and syntax of each database.
STUDY SAMPLE: Among the 6,646 studies retrieved, 49 met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: This systematic review included 49 studies, 12 of which were included in the meta-analyses. In-person aural rehabilitation showed a medium effect size, while internet-based aural rehabilitation showed a small but statistically significant improvement in hearing-related QoL measures. In terms of health-related QoL, only internet-based but not in-person aural rehabilitation had a small statistically significant improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that adults with hearing loss benefit from both in-person and internet-based aural rehabilitation regarding hearing-related QoL outcomes. More investigations are needed to understand the effectiveness of particular components of aural rehabilitation in improving the health-related QoL of adults with hearing loss.