Purpose: Auditory acclimatization refers to changes in auditory performance over time due to hearing aid modifications, extending beyond task-specific or training effects. This preregistered systematic review expands on previous ones by examining a broader range of outcomes, including auditory (e.g., speech recognition, electrophysiological responses) and selected nonauditory (e.g., self-reported outcomes) measures. It aimed to assess acclimatization’s presence, magnitude, and influencing factors, focusing on controlled trials comparing postfitting aided outcomes with a control group. This is the first review to comprehensively report self-reported outcomes, advancing the field.Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science in March 2024. Eligible studies followed the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design, and Timeline framework, including new adult hearing aid users with sensorineural hearing loss using air-conduction hearing aids. Studies were required to report outcomes, with a comparator and at least two data points in the same condition. Exclusions applied to studies involving children, advanced feature devices, surgical implants, non–peer-reviewed work, or uncontrolled studies. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO. A planned meta-analysis was excluded due to missing data.Results: The review included 25 controlled studies on auditory acclimatization. Of these, 18 examined speech recognition, with 10 reporting acclimatization, one mixed, and seven no acclimatization. Among eight studies with self-reported outcomes, three supported acclimatization, three showed mixed results, and two found no evidence. For electrophysiological outcomes, four of seven studies reported acclimatization, and three did not. Consistent hearing aid use and hearing loss severity influenced acclimatization, while cognitive abilities and age had no significant impact. Of the 25 studies, 16% were rated good quality, 80% were rated fair, and 4% were rated poor, with common issues including lack of randomization, blinding, and insufficient sample size reporting.Conclusions: This review highlighted the complexity of auditory acclimatization, influenced by various factors. Evidence suggested acclimatization occurred in some users and outcomes, though improvements were modest and variable. The most consistent gains were in speech recognition in noise and self-reported measures (e.g., Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile), though changes were generally modest. Future studies should include essential statistical data, prioritize randomized controlled trials, and ensure early baseline and key interval measurements to better isolate and quantify acclimatization effects.Supplemental Material S1. Detailed speech recognition percentages, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and performance criteria.Supplemental Material S2. Quality assessment and level of evidence ratings.Wentzel, C., Swanepoel, D. W., Mahomed-Asmail, F., Beukes, E., Dawes, P., Munro, K., Almufarrij, I., & Manchaiah, V. (2025). Auditory acclimatization in new adult hearing aid users: A registered systematic review of magnitude, key variables, and clinical relevance. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 68(7), 3445–3479. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00856

Purpose: Auditory acclimatization refers to changes in auditory performance over time due to hearing aid modifications, extending beyond task-specific or training effects. This preregistered systematic review expands on previous ones by examining a broader range of outcomes, including auditory (e.g., speech recognition, electrophysiological responses) and selected nonauditory (e.g., self-reported outcomes) measures. It aimed to assess acclimatization’s presence, magnitude, and influencing factors, focusing on controlled trials comparing postfitting aided outcomes with a control group. This is the first review to comprehensively report self-reported outcomes, advancing the field.Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science in March 2024. Eligible studies followed the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design, and Timeline framework, including new adult hearing aid users with sensorineural hearing loss using air-conduction hearing aids. Studies were required to report outcomes, with a comparator and at least two data points in the same condition. Exclusions applied to studies involving children, advanced feature devices, surgical implants, non–peer-reviewed work, or uncontrolled studies. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO. A planned meta-analysis was excluded due to missing data.Results: The review included 25 controlled studies on auditory acclimatization. Of these, 18 examined speech recognition, with 10 reporting acclimatization, one mixed, and seven no acclimatization. Among eight studies with self-reported outcomes, three supported acclimatization, three showed mixed results, and two found no evidence. For electrophysiological outcomes, four of seven studies reported acclimatization, and three did not. Consistent hearing aid use and hearing loss severity influenced acclimatization, while cognitive abilities and age had no significant impact. Of the 25 studies, 16% were rated good quality, 80% were rated fair, and 4% were rated poor, with common issues including lack of randomization, blinding, and insufficient sample size reporting.Conclusions: This review highlighted the complexity of auditory acclimatization, influenced by various factors. Evidence suggested acclimatization occurred in some users and outcomes, though improvements were modest and variable. The most consistent gains were in speech recognition in noise and self-reported measures (e.g., Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile), though changes were generally modest. Future studies should include essential statistical data, prioritize randomized controlled trials, and ensure early baseline and key interval measurements to better isolate and quantify acclimatization effects.Supplemental Material S1. Detailed speech recognition percentages, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and performance criteria.Supplemental Material S2. Quality assessment and level of evidence ratings.Wentzel, C., Swanepoel, D. W., Mahomed-Asmail, F., Beukes, E., Dawes, P., Munro, K., Almufarrij, I., & Manchaiah, V. (2025). Auditory acclimatization in new adult hearing aid users: A registered systematic review of magnitude, key variables, and clinical relevance. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 68(7), 3445–3479. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00856

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe extended high-frequency (EHF) pure-tone audiometry monitoring of ototoxicity in a longitudinal treatment program for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB). Method: This was a retrospective record review of longitudinal conventional (0.25–8 kHz) and EHF (9–16 kHz) audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring of DRTB patients undergoing treatment at community-based clinics between 2013 and 2017. Data from 69 patients with an average age of 37.9 years (SD = 11.2, range: 16.0–63.8 years) were included. Patients were assessed by primary health care audiologists (87%) or community health workers (13%) using portable audiological equipment. The average length of time between initial and exit assessments was 84.6 days (SD = 74.2, range: 2–335 days). Results: EHF ototoxicity of a mild or greater degree of hearing loss (> 25 dB HL in one or both ears across frequencies) was evident in 85.5% of patients’ posttreatment, compared with 47.8% of patients across conventional frequencies. EHF audiometry demonstrated an ototoxic shift (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association criteria) in 56.5% of cases compared with 31.9% when only conventional audiometry was considered. Mean hearing deterioration for patients was significant across EHFs (9–16 kHz) bilaterally (p < .05). Absent EHF thresholds at the initial assessment, owing to maximum output limits, was a limitation that occurred most frequently at 16 kHz (17.4%, 24/138). Conclusions: EHF audiometry is most sensitive for the early detection of ototoxicity and should be included in monitoring programs. Clinical ototoxicity monitoring protocols should consider shortened assessment approaches that target frequencies most sensitive to ototoxicity, including EHFs. Supplemental Material S1. Mean hearing thresholds for initial and exit assessment with hearing deterioration across ears (N = 69). Stevenson, L. J., Biagio-de Jager, L., Graham, M. A., & Swanepoel, D. W. (2023). Extended high-frequency audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring: A longitudinal evaluation of drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. American Journal of Audiology, 32(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00039

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe extended high-frequency (EHF) pure-tone audiometry monitoring of ototoxicity in a longitudinal treatment program for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB). Method: This was a retrospective record review of longitudinal conventional (0.25–8 kHz) and EHF (9–16 kHz) audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring of DRTB patients undergoing treatment at community-based clinics between 2013 and 2017. Data from 69 patients with an average age of 37.9 years (SD = 11.2, range: 16.0–63.8 years) were included. Patients were assessed by primary health care audiologists (87%) or community health workers (13%) using portable audiological equipment. The average length of time between initial and exit assessments was 84.6 days (SD = 74.2, range: 2–335 days). Results: EHF ototoxicity of a mild or greater degree of hearing loss (> 25 dB HL in one or both ears across frequencies) was evident in 85.5% of patients’ posttreatment, compared with 47.8% of patients across conventional frequencies. EHF audiometry demonstrated an ototoxic shift (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association criteria) in 56.5% of cases compared with 31.9% when only conventional audiometry was considered. Mean hearing deterioration for patients was significant across EHFs (9–16 kHz) bilaterally (p < .05). Absent EHF thresholds at the initial assessment, owing to maximum output limits, was a limitation that occurred most frequently at 16 kHz (17.4%, 24/138). Conclusions: EHF audiometry is most sensitive for the early detection of ototoxicity and should be included in monitoring programs. Clinical ototoxicity monitoring protocols should consider shortened assessment approaches that target frequencies most sensitive to ototoxicity, including EHFs. Supplemental Material S1. Mean hearing thresholds for initial and exit assessment with hearing deterioration across ears (N = 69). Stevenson, L. J., Biagio-de Jager, L., Graham, M. A., & Swanepoel, D. W. (2023). Extended high-frequency audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring: A longitudinal evaluation of drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. American Journal of Audiology, 32(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00039

Datasets underpinning PhD Thesis "Childhood hearing loss profile, decentralised screening and outcomes in the Western Cape public healthcare system, South Africa". It addresss barriers to timeous diagnoses of childhood hearing loss, improving access to hearing healthcare, and ultimately providing successful intervention with hearing technology in low-resourced contexts like South Africa. Children with additional disabilities require multi-disciplinary support to realize sufficient benefit from hearing aid use.

This dataset represents the results obtained from a study conducted on perceptions of telehealth services for hearing loss in South Africa's public healthcare system. The data is given in three PDF files and contain the following: Study i: This data represents the results obtained from a study titled Audiologists' perceptions of hearing healthcare resources and services in South Africa's public healthcare system. Figures I-III: These figures represent audiologists' perceptions on the availability of audiology screening equipment (Figure I), diagnostic audiology equipment (Figure II), and Information Systems and Technology (Figure III) within the public sector hospital they were employed in. Table 3.2: The demographic characteristics of the 100 participating audiologists.Table 3.3: The audiologists' open-ended responses from the question asked on their perceptions of the greatest challenges hindering hearing healthcare in the public sector. The results are represented according to the most prominent central themes and descriptions and illustrative quotes for these themes. Study ii: This data represents the results obtained from a study titled Cochlear implantation in South Africa - Part two.A restrospective review of the 2019 annual reports submitted to South African Cochlear Implant Group (SACIG) by the cochlear implant programmes was conducted. These data provide a cross-section of the status of CI in SA at the current time. Two of the 12 cochlear implant programmes’ annual reports were unfortunately not accessible. Study iii: Figure 6.2: represents audiologists' perceptions of the types of telehealth services used in Audiology Departments within South African public sector hospitals, indicated in terms of % (n=28) Figure 6.3: represents audiologists' perceived barriers toward telehealth service delivery within South African public sector hospitals, indicated in terms of % (n=86) Table 6.2: represents audiologists' responses to questions on their perceptions of telehealth practices within their hospital setting (n=97) Table 6.3: represents qualitative data - themes, categories, descriptions, and illustrative examples audiologists' perceptions of telehealth services for hearing loss in the public healthcare system.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe extended high-frequency (EHF) pure-tone audiometry monitoring of ototoxicity in a longitudinal treatment program for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB). Method: This was a retrospective record review of longitudinal conventional (0.25–8 kHz) and EHF (9–16 kHz) audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring of DRTB patients undergoing treatment at community-based clinics between 2013 and 2017. Data from 69 patients with an average age of 37.9 years (SD = 11.2, range: 16.0–63.8 years) were included. Patients were assessed by primary health care audiologists (87%) or community health workers (13%) using portable audiological equipment. The average length of time between initial and exit assessments was 84.6 days (SD = 74.2, range: 2–335 days). Results: EHF ototoxicity of a mild or greater degree of hearing loss (> 25 dB HL in one or both ears across frequencies) was evident in 85.5% of patients’ posttreatment, compared with 47.8% of patients across conventional frequencies. EHF audiometry demonstrated an ototoxic shift (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association criteria) in 56.5% of cases compared with 31.9% when only conventional audiometry was considered. Mean hearing deterioration for patients was significant across EHFs (9–16 kHz) bilaterally (p < .05). Absent EHF thresholds at the initial assessment, owing to maximum output limits, was a limitation that occurred most frequently at 16 kHz (17.4%, 24/138). Conclusions: EHF audiometry is most sensitive for the early detection of ototoxicity and should be included in monitoring programs. Clinical ototoxicity monitoring protocols should consider shortened assessment approaches that target frequencies most sensitive to ototoxicity, including EHFs. Supplemental Material S1. Mean hearing thresholds for initial and exit assessment with hearing deterioration across ears (N = 69). Stevenson, L. J., Biagio-de Jager, L., Graham, M. A., & Swanepoel, D. W. (2022). Extended high-frequency audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring: A longitudinal evaluation of drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. American Journal of Audiology, 32(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00039

This dataset represents the results obtained from a study conducted on perceptions of telehealth services for hearing loss in South Africa's public healthcare system. The data is given in three PDF files and contain the following: Study i: This data represents the results obtained from a study titled Audiologists' perceptions of hearing healthcare resources and services in South Africa's public healthcare system. Figures I-III: These figures represent audiologists' perceptions on the availability of audiology screening equipment (Figure I), diagnostic audiology equipment (Figure II), and Information Systems and Technology (Figure III) within the public sector hospital they were employed in. Table 3.2: The demographic characteristics of the 100 participating audiologists.Table 3.3: The audiologists' open-ended responses from the question asked on their perceptions of the greatest challenges hindering hearing healthcare in the public sector. The results are represented according to the most prominent central themes and descriptions and illustrative quotes for these themes. Study ii: This data represents the results obtained from a study titled Cochlear implantation in South Africa - Part two.A restrospective review of the 2019 annual reports submitted to South African Cochlear Implant Group (SACIG) by the cochlear implant programmes was conducted. These data provide a cross-section of the status of CI in SA at the current time. Two of the 12 cochlear implant programmes’ annual reports were unfortunately not accessible. Study iii: Figure 6.2: represents audiologists' perceptions of the types of telehealth services used in Audiology Departments within South African public sector hospitals, indicated in terms of % (n=28) Figure 6.3: represents audiologists' perceived barriers toward telehealth service delivery within South African public sector hospitals, indicated in terms of % (n=86) Table 6.2: represents audiologists' responses to questions on their perceptions of telehealth practices within their hospital setting (n=97) Table 6.3: represents qualitative data - themes, categories, descriptions, and illustrative examples audiologists' perceptions of telehealth services for hearing loss in the public healthcare system.

This dataset includes the data collected and stored on an Excel spreadsheet and used for the research project: Community-based ototoxicity monitoring with extended high-frequency audiometry and community health workers for drug-resistant tuberculosis.

This dataset includes the data collected and stored on an Excel spreadsheet and used for the research project: Community-based ototoxicity monitoring with extended high-frequency audiometry and community health workers for drug-resistant tuberculosis.