Data
Listener, clinician and venue surveys
Survey findings on preference, use, awareness and satisfaction, retaining response groups, recruitment, denominators and funding.
Data licence: CC0 1.0 (public domain dedication).
Reading the results
Each row is a response distribution, item, subgroup or identified qualitative finding. Listener, clinician and venue responses stay separate. Sample size is not automatically a result’s denominator, and repeated rows may share respondents. Read recruitment, funding, question wording, response base and limits before comparing findings. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2023; Committee for Communication Access in… 2024; Alles et al. 2025; National Churches Trust 2025)
The hypothetical city-council recommendation concerns listener preferences, while the universal-receiver purchase question concerns a listener's own proposed purchase. Neither establishes completed venue purchases. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2023; Harkins and Tucker 2007)
Column definitions · Compilation and interpretation · Change log
Scroll horizontally to read all columns. Empty cells mean no value was recorded; read each row’s notes and limits with its results.
| Finding ID | Survey | Year | Year basis | Country | Response group | Finding type | Scope | Sample size | Recruitment | Funding detail | Question short | Question wording | Result | Result base | Source ID | Supporting source IDs | Source locator | Limitations | Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kochkin-2014-hearing-rating | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Rate hearing with and without the loop, from hearing nothing to every word. | paraphrase of described rating task | Mean 8.7 with the loop versus 4.9 without on a 1-10 scale; 86% versus 13.5% rated at least 8. | Survey 1: 866 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Figure 4 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-device-satisfaction | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Did the loop increase satisfaction with the hearing device? | paraphrase of described rating task | Nearly 9 in 10 agreed or strongly agreed. | Survey 1: 866 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Figure 5 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-no-benefit | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Comment on the loop experience. | paraphrase of described comment prompt | 44 respondents (reported as 5%) said the loop gave no benefit. | 866 Survey 1 respondents; 418 left comments | kochkin-2014 | Results, comments after Figure 6 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. Qualitative comments coded by the authors; this is not a separately printed yes/no question. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-problems | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Comment on the loop experience. | paraphrase of described comment prompt | Negative accounts included uneven signals, electrical buzzing, absent microphone use, loops switched off and difficulty with telecoil orientation or settings. | Both surveys solicited comments; count behind the categorized negative list not reported | kochkin-2014 | Results, negative comments following Table 1 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-quality | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Compare sound quality, speech understanding, concentration and background noise with the loop. | paraphrase of described rating task | Nearly 7 in 10 rated each attribute +4 or +5 on a -5 to +5 scale; 7-9% reported no change or worse performance. | Survey 2: 243 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Table 1 and Figure 7 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-music | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | How does the loop affect separating voices from music? | paraphrase of described rating task | 38% rated +4 or +5; 24% reported no change or worse performance. | Survey 2: 243 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Table 1 and Figure 7 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-preference | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | preference | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Rank the three listening technologies experienced. | shortened paraphrase of published question | 81% preferred the loop with their own hearing device over FM/infrared with a neckloop or headset. | Survey 2: 243 respondents; only systems previously used were ranked | kochkin-2014 | Method, Survey 2; Results, Figure 8 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. Method refers to television; Figure 8 refers to large venues. No Wi-Fi or Auracast option. Exact questionnaire not reproduced. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-all-three | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | preference | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Rank the three listening technologies experienced. | shortened paraphrase of published question | Reported preferences: loop 88%; FM/infrared with neckloop 12.8%; FM/infrared with headset 4.8%. | 125 Survey 2 respondents who had used all three | kochkin-2014 | Results, paragraph following Figure 8 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. Printed percentages total 105.6%; retained as reported without normalization. Method refers to television but figure refers to large venues. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-seek-venues | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | intention | venue systems | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Likelihood of seeking ticketed venues with a hearing loop? | paraphrase of described question | 82% very or extremely likely. | Survey 2: 243 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Figure 9 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. Listener attendance intention, not an operator purchasing decision. | Manufacturer | |
| kochkin-2014-demonstration | Kochkin et al. loop surveys 1 and 2 | 2014 | publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United States 89%; Europe 10%; Australia and Canada 1% | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 866 usable Survey 1 responses; 243 usable follow-up responses | Convenience sample of existing loop users via HLAA, LoopWisconsin, Hearing Link, Hearing Health Matters and social-media advertisements; follow-up invitation to those supplying an email address. | Manufacturer (grants from Etymotic Research, Contacta, Listen Technologies, IntriCon and Univox by Edin, as listed in the article acknowledgments) | Did the professional demonstrate the telecoil at fitting? | shortened paraphrase of figure question | 35% recalled a demonstration. | Survey 2: 243 respondents | kochkin-2014 | Results, Figure 11 | Self-selected experienced loop users, with severe losses and implant users over-represented. Loop quality and telecoil settings were not checked. Some rated venues were homes. | Manufacturer | |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-telecoil-feature | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Which features do you have in or with your hearing devices? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 740 selected telecoils/T-switch; 262 selected an external device with a telecoil; 53 selected no hearing aid or implant. | 1,487 answers; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q7, p. 8 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. The two telecoil categories can overlap and must not be added to infer unique users. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-telecoil-must-have | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | intention | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Would telecoils be essential in the next hearing aid or implant processor? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 734; no 272; unsure 342; did not know what telecoils are 135. Yes among yes/no answers: 734/1,006 = 73.0% (calculated). | 1,483 answers overall; 1,006 yes/no answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q8, p. 10 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Personal-device purchase intention, not a venue purchase or comparison between listening systems. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-bluetooth-must-have | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | intention | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Would Bluetooth be essential in the next hearing aid or implant processor? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 1,273; no 54; unsure 122; unfamiliar 35. Yes among yes/no answers: 1,273/1,327 = 95.9% (calculated). | 1,484 answers overall; 1,327 yes/no answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q9, p. 12 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Generic Bluetooth; does not measure Auracast demand or venue purchasing. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-counsel-eight-states | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | In the eight named states, did the professional discuss telecoils before fitting? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 167; no 188; cannot remember 62; live elsewhere 1,052. | 1,469 answers; 417 applicable including cannot remember | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q10, p. 14 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Question names AZ, DE, FL, IN, NM, NY, UT and WA. It does not test a law or establish its effect. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-counsel-other-states | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | In another state, did the professional discuss telecoils before fitting? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 327; no 490; not applicable 657. | 1,474 answers; 817 yes/no answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q11, p. 15 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-room-loop | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Where do you use your telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 536 selected venue hearing loops. | 1,328 answers; 519 not applicable; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q12, p. 16 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-counter-loop | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Where do you use your telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 118 selected counter hearing loops. | 1,328 answers; 519 not applicable; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q12, p. 16 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-neckloop | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Where do you use your telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 150 selected FM/infrared receiver and neckloop. | 1,328 answers; 519 not applicable; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q12, p. 16 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-unused-telecoil | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Where do you use your telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 223 selected having telecoils but not using them. | 1,328 answers; 519 not applicable; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q12, p. 16 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-learning | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How did you learn about telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 557 selected hearing professional; 465 support group; 267 internet; 232 knew nothing about telecoils before the survey. | 1,335 answers; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q13, p. 17 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-request | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How often do you seek or request hearing assistance at public gatherings? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 351; usually 280; half the time 102; seldom 230; never 385. | 1,348 answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q15, p. 19 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Prompt includes both listening systems and captions. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-availability | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | availability | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How often is hearing assistance readily available? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 20; usually 178; half the time 289; seldom 576; never 227. Seldom/never: 803/1,290 = 62.2% (calculated). | 1,290 answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q16, p. 20 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Listener-reported availability of listening systems or captions; not a venue inventory. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-systems-encountered | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | availability | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Which systems or accommodations do you commonly find? | shortened paraphrase of published question | FM/headsets 275; FM including neckloops 197; infrared/headsets 71; infrared including neckloops 58; hearing loop 226; other audio systems 101; unsure of some systems 475. | 1,303 answers; multiple selections | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q17, p. 21 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Captions were also options (245 CART and 374 handheld captions). These are selections by listeners, not installation shares. The report percentages cannot be read as frequency per venue visit. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-avoid-events | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Do you avoid events without assistance when you would struggle to hear? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 612; sometimes 365; no 315; not applicable 61. | 1,353 answers; 1,292 excluding not applicable | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q18A, p. 22 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Includes assistive communication accommodations beyond listening systems. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-problems | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How often do you encounter assistive listening problems? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Seldom 288; sometimes 307; half the time 122; fairly often 277; very often 185. | 1,179 answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q19A, p. 23 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Examples combine batteries, staff, neckloops, equipment failure and signs; no problem-specific prevalence. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-borrow-headset | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How often do you borrow a required receiver and headset? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 189; usually 165; half the time 35; sometimes 189; never 383; not applicable 366. Always/usually: 354/961 = 36.8% (calculated). | 1,327 answers; 961 excluding not applicable | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q20, p. 24 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-borrow-neckloop | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How often do you borrow a required receiver and neckloop? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 205; usually 137; half the time 25; sometimes 163; never 350; no telecoils 432. Always/usually: 342/880 = 38.9% (calculated). | 1,312 answers; 880 excluding no telecoils | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q21, p. 25 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-loop-use | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | With telecoils at a looped venue, how often do you use them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 367; usually 129; half the time 23; sometimes 97; never 103; no telecoils 424; no looped venues visited 166. Always: 367/719 = 51.0%; always/usually: 496/719 = 69.0% (calculated). | 1,309 answers; 719 with a frequency answer | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q22, p. 26 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Companion report incorrectly calls 69% always; it corresponds to always plus usually. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-wifi-use | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | use | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Have you experienced audio over Wi-Fi for assistive listening? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 217; no 1,104. | 1,321 answers | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q23A, p. 27 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-wifi-delay | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | How did you find the latency or echo of audio over Wi-Fi? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Not conscious of delay 119; distracting 88; objectionable 44; not applicable 1,018. Distracting/objectionable: 132/251 = 52.6% (calculated). | 1,269 answers; 251 excluding not applicable | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q24, p. 28 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. 251 delay ratings exceed the 217 reporting Wi-Fi experience. The charts do not establish the same respondents answered both. Prompt presupposes latency/echo. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| ccaa-2023-survey-graphs-council-recommendation | CCAA assistive communication survey (2024 report) | 2023 | fieldwork 5-24 September 2023 per companion survey page; report January 2024 | United States survey context; no country distribution in charts | listener | preference | venue systems | 1,519 volunteers overall; item bases vary | Self-selected online volunteers with hearing loss or related conditions, recruited via hearing-loss websites, newsletters, blogs and groups; Frost Center collected responses. | Nonprofit advocacy (Committee for Communication Access in America, an ad hoc committee of hearing-loss advocates chaired by Stephen O. Frazier; study funding not stated; responses collected and analysed by the Frost Center at Hope College) | Which single communication system would you recommend for a city council chamber? | shortened paraphrase of published question | FM/RF 40; infrared 11; hearing loop 187; Wi-Fi 61; wired 13; captions 492; insufficient knowledge 531. | 1,335 answers; 804 naming a system; 312 naming one of five listening systems | ccaa-2023-survey-graphs | ccaa-2024 | Q27, p. 31 | Mostly older respondents, with severe-to-profound loss and implants over-represented. Counts are unweighted response counts; multi-select totals may exceed the item base. Hypothetical listener recommendation, not a buyer survey. Loop: 187/312 = 59.9% of listening-system choices, 187/804 = 23.3% of all system choices (calculated). Captions: 492/804 = 61.2%. Auracast absent. | Nonprofit advocacy |
| harkins-tucker-2007-staff | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve untrained staff? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 67% often/very often; 85% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-signs | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve missing receiver-checkout signs? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 65% often/very often; 85% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-sound | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve poor sound quality? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 51% often/very often; 67% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-compatibility | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve receiver incompatible with hearing aid/implant? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 47% often/very often; 77% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-interference | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve interference or buzzing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 44% often/very often; 78% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-batteries | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve dead batteries? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 34% often/very often; 70% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-own-voice | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve difficulty controlling own voice level? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 27% often/very often; 55% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-controls | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | How often did borrowed receivers involve difficulty using receiver controls? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 12% often/very often; 35% at least sometimes. | 276 respondents who had borrowed a venue receiver | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-telecoil | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Does the hearing aid or implant include a telecoil? | paraphrase of described question | 85% reported telecoils. | 423 survey respondents overall; item base not explicitly stated | harkins-tucker-2007 | Results, Hearing Level and Hearing Technology | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-interfaces | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | use | shared receiver path | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Which ALD interfaces have you used in the last two years? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Telecoil alone or room loop 65%; neckloop 48%. | 423 overall; item-specific base not printed in Table 3 | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 3 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. Includes personal listening as well as venue use; multi-select interfaces are not venue-system preference. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-audience-use | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | use | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Have you used assistance as an audience member with a speaker over 10 feet away? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 58% had used assistance in this situation during the previous two years. | 423 survey respondents overall; item base not separately printed | harkins-tucker-2007 | Listening Situations and Assistive Listening Device Use; Figure 1 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-audience-benefit | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Is speech better with assistance than with the hearing device alone? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 89% reported somewhat or much better performance in the audience situation. | 274 users in the audience situation, per Figure 2 caption | harkins-tucker-2007 | Figure 2 caption; Discussion, audience situation | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. No comparison between transmission technologies. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-universal-receiver | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | intention | venue systems | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Would you purchase a universal receiver if available? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 76% willing; 5% unwilling; 19% unsure. | 423 overall; item base not separately reported | harkins-tucker-2007 | Suggestions and Problems, paragraph after Table 4 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. Hypothetical listener purchase of a personal receiver for venue systems, not a venue procurement survey. | Independent | |
| harkins-tucker-2007-information | Harkins and Tucker online ALD survey | 2005 | fieldwork July-September 2005; article 2007 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 423 respondents with hearing loss; 276 venue receiver borrowers | Online convenience sample via the HLAA convention, membership newsletter, local chapters and Beyond Hearing listserver. | Independent (Technology Access Program, Gallaudet University, for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement; developed under grant H133E-03006-06 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, US Department of Education) | Which sources have you consulted for hearing technology information? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Consumer organisations 73%; meetings/conferences 68%; word of mouth 67%; audiologists 59%. | 423 respondents; multiple selections | harkins-tucker-2007 | Table 5 | Experienced internet users with mostly severe/profound losses; findings not generalizable. No venue transmission technology recorded. Information covers other hearing technology as well as assistive listening. | Independent | |
| wireless-rerc-2013-availability | Wireless RERC public-venue assistive listening needs | 2013 | fieldwork 22 January-1 April 2013 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | availability | venue systems | 180 respondents with hearing loss | Convenience sample via the RERC Consumer Advisory Network, website, social media and disability/hearing-loss organisations. | Government (US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, grant H133E110002; the questionnaire was designed as a market-needs study for an app-based assistive listening system being developed with Wireless RERC support) | How often are listening systems provided at public events attended? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Often 7%; sometimes 27%; rarely 66%. | 180 overall; item base not reported | wireless-rerc-2013 | Table 6, p. 3 | Short market-needs questionnaire for an app under development with RERC support; no venue technology breakdown. Item-level counts not reported. | Government | |
| wireless-rerc-2013-use | Wireless RERC public-venue assistive listening needs | 2013 | fieldwork 22 January-1 April 2013 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | use | venue systems | 180 respondents with hearing loss | Convenience sample via the RERC Consumer Advisory Network, website, social media and disability/hearing-loss organisations. | Government (US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, grant H133E110002; the questionnaire was designed as a market-needs study for an app-based assistive listening system being developed with Wireless RERC support) | When a system is available, do you use it? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Often 36%; sometimes 34%; never 30%. | 180 overall; item base not reported | wireless-rerc-2013 | Table 7, p. 4 | Short market-needs questionnaire for an app under development with RERC support; no venue technology breakdown. Item-level counts not reported. | Government | |
| wireless-rerc-2013-satisfaction | Wireless RERC public-venue assistive listening needs | 2013 | fieldwork 22 January-1 April 2013 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 180 respondents with hearing loss | Convenience sample via the RERC Consumer Advisory Network, website, social media and disability/hearing-loss organisations. | Government (US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, grant H133E110002; the questionnaire was designed as a market-needs study for an app-based assistive listening system being developed with Wireless RERC support) | If you use a system, how satisfied are you? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Very satisfied 7%; somewhat satisfied 56%; somewhat unsatisfied 24%; very unsatisfied 13%. | Users of available systems; subgroup count not reported | wireless-rerc-2013 | Table 8, p. 4 | Short market-needs questionnaire for an app under development with RERC support; no venue technology breakdown. Item-level counts not reported. | Government | |
| wireless-rerc-2013-app-intention | Wireless RERC public-venue assistive listening needs | 2013 | fieldwork 22 January-1 April 2013 | United States recruitment focus; respondent country distribution not reported | listener | intention | shared-path context | 180 respondents with hearing loss | Convenience sample via the RERC Consumer Advisory Network, website, social media and disability/hearing-loss organisations. | Government (US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, grant H133E110002; the questionnaire was designed as a market-needs study for an app-based assistive listening system being developed with Wireless RERC support) | Would you use a smartphone app that provided assistive listening? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 86%; no 14%. | Smartphone users; subgroup count not reported | wireless-rerc-2013 | Table 10, p. 4 | Short market-needs questionnaire for an app under development with RERC support; no venue technology breakdown. Item-level counts not reported. Question follows a built-in microphone amplifier item. It cannot establish demand for venue Wi-Fi streaming or Auracast. | Government | |
| picou-2020-telecoil-awareness | MarkeTrak 10 | 2018 | survey year in Figure 4 caption; article published 2020 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | Over 20,000 households screened; 3,132 detailed respondents; 969 owners; 702 recent owners | Online household screening balanced to census characteristics; respondents with hearing difficulty invited to the detailed survey. Methods companion is archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is commissioned by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares research funding from Sonova, GN ReSound and Signia as well as the National Institutes of Health) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | paraphrase of reported feature item | 20% reported a telecoil; 26% were unsure. | 702 owners who obtained aids in the preceding five years | picou-2020 | Current Usage, Features; Table 1 | Self-reported features; no equipment inspection. These findings do not ask about venue systems. | Trade body | |
| picou-2020-telecoil-satisfaction | MarkeTrak 10 | 2018 | survey year in Figure 4 caption; article published 2020 | United States | listener | satisfaction | shared receiver path | Over 20,000 households screened; 3,132 detailed respondents; 969 owners; 702 recent owners | Online household screening balanced to census characteristics; respondents with hearing difficulty invited to the detailed survey. Methods companion is archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is commissioned by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares research funding from Sonova, GN ReSound and Signia as well as the National Institutes of Health) | Overall hearing aid satisfaction, grouped by telecoil ownership? | analysis of satisfaction by feature; not a direct question | Owners reporting a telecoil had higher satisfaction than those without one. | Hearing aid owners grouped by reported telecoil ownership; Figure 7 does not print subgroup or overall counts | picou-2020 | Satisfaction, Features; Figure 7 | Self-reported features; no equipment inspection. These findings do not ask about venue systems. Association with whole-device satisfaction, not a causal test of telecoils or venue satisfaction. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-telecoil-awareness | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 33% reported a telecoil. | 815 recent hearing aid owners | picou-2022 | Table 1 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-mt9-telecoil | MarkeTrak 9 (retrospective comparison in Picou 2022) | 2015 | survey edition label; cited retrospective article 2022 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 782 recent hearing aid owners | Earlier MarkeTrak survey; original recruitment protocol not reproduced in the comparison table. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 23% reported a telecoil. | 782 recent hearing aid owners in MarkeTrak 9 | picou-2022 | Table 1, MT 2015 column | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-telecoil-in-person | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 29% reported a telecoil. | 716 in-person fitted recent hearing aid owners | picou-2022 | Table 3 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Fitting channels differ in offered devices and users; source does not establish why rates differ. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-telecoil-remote | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 59% reported a telecoil. | 51 remotely fitted recent hearing aid owners | picou-2022 | Table 3 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Fitting channels differ in offered devices and users; source does not establish why rates differ. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-telecoil-self | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 43% reported a telecoil. | 48 self-fitted recent hearing aid owners | picou-2022 | Table 3 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Fitting channels differ in offered devices and users; source does not establish why rates differ. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-impact-in-person | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | preference | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features most improve listening? Select up to three of your own features. | shortened paraphrase of published question | 6% selected the telecoil. | Table 4 lists 429 in-person fitted owners; percentage applies to owners with the feature, whose count is not separately supplied | picou-2022 | Table 4 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Whole-device feature impact; not a venue-system preference or a percentage of all hearing aid owners. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-impact-remote | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | preference | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features most improve listening? Select up to three of your own features. | shortened paraphrase of published question | 6% selected the telecoil. | Table 4 lists 45 remotely fitted owners; percentage applies to owners with the feature, whose count is not separately supplied | picou-2022 | Table 4 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Whole-device feature impact; not a venue-system preference or a percentage of all hearing aid owners. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-impact-self | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | preference | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Which features most improve listening? Select up to three of your own features. | shortened paraphrase of published question | 3% selected the telecoil. | Table 4 lists 27 self-fitted owners; percentage applies to owners with the feature, whose count is not separately supplied | picou-2022 | Table 4 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Whole-device feature impact; not a venue-system preference or a percentage of all hearing aid owners. | Trade body | |
| picou-2022-satisfaction | MarkeTrak 2022 | 2021 | fieldwork November-December 2021; survey edition and publication 2022 | United States | listener | satisfaction | shared receiver path | 15,138 households; 3,218 detailed respondents including 1,139 hearing aid owners; 815 recent owners in Picou; fitting-channel and feature bases differ | Online household survey with census-based quotas and household/individual weighting; Carr and Kihm methods companion archived with the record. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is supported by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the issue editorial identifies guest editor Thomas Powers with Powers Consulting, not HIA; the author, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, declares no conflicts of interest) | Overall hearing aid satisfaction, grouped by telecoil ownership? | analysis of satisfaction by feature; not a direct question | 90% satisfied among owners with telecoils versus 82% among owners without. | Feature subgroups; counts not reported beside the comparison | picou-2022 | Telephone Use; Figure 2 | Self-reported feature knowledge. Does not measure installed device capability or preference among venue systems. Association with overall hearing aid satisfaction; not evidence that telecoils caused it. | Trade body | |
| sobek-dobyan-2025-telecoil | MarkeTrak 2025 | 2024 | fieldwork October-November 2024; edition and article 2025 | United States | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 16,148 households; 2,955 detailed respondents; 1,173 hearing aid owners; 887 recent owners | Az Marketing Research online household survey balanced and weighted to US census characteristics. | Trade body (MarkeTrak is commissioned by the Hearing Industries Association, the US hearing aid industry's association; the first author is HIA's executive director and the second runs a consultancy serving the hearing health industry) | Which features does your current hearing aid have? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Telecoil: yes 24%; no 47%; unsure 29%. | 887 owners who obtained aids within five years | sobek-dobyan-2025 | Table 1 image, telecoil row | Industry survey summary. Self-reported features; no venue-system preference question. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-telecoil | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large panels with age/gender quotas and a soft regional quota; detailed samples weighted to the screening interviews. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Are your hearing aids equipped with a telecoil? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Yes 11%; no 26%; do not know 63%. | 718 hearing aid owners | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-left chart; pp. 8-9, organisation and methods | Self-reported knowledge and use; panel sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-frequency | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | shared receiver path | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | How often do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Never 10%; rarely 32%; occasionally 32%; often 23%; very often 3%. | 68 owners labelled equipped with telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, lower-left chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Use question includes all telecoil purposes, not just venues. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-theatre | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | theatre/auditorium: 38%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-education | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | shared receiver path | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | school/university: 31%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-church | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | church: 31%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-rail | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | train station: 27%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-airport | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | airport: 25%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-office | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | office buildings: 20%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-conference | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | conference room: 17%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-counter | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | use | venue systems | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | Where do you use the telecoil to improve hearing? | shortened paraphrase of published question | drive-through/ticket window/bank counter: 7%. | 68 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, upper-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Location responses overlap. Other options were phone and other; classroom responses are retained only as shared telecoil-path context. | Trade body | |
| anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk-satisfaction | EuroTrak UK 2025 | 2025 | survey edition year; exact fieldwork dates not supplied | United Kingdom | listener | satisfaction | shared receiver path | 15,118 screening participants; 718 hearing aid owners; 567 non-owners with hearing loss | Large online panels with age/gender quotas and regional quotas; census-based balancing. Anovum fieldwork for EHIMA and BIHIMA. | Trade body (commissioned by EHIMA and BIHIMA, the European and British-Irish hearing instrument manufacturers' associations; designed, fielded and analysed by the research firm Anovum with a panel company, and EHIMA approved the questionnaire) | How satisfied are you with the telecoil option? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Very dissatisfied 0%; dissatisfied 2%; somewhat dissatisfied 1%; neutral 8%; somewhat satisfied 34%; satisfied 39%; very satisfied 16%. | 59 owners labelled use telecoil | anovum-2025-eurotrak-uk | p. 51, lower-right chart | Self-reported knowledge and use; online sample. Weighted percentages need not match raw subgroup counts. Does not isolate venue listening from telephone or other telecoil use. | Trade body | |
| lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey-preference | Ideas for Ears theatre and concert survey | 2016 | news publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United Kingdom (news report context) | listener | preference | venue systems | 143 people with mild-to-profound hearing loss | Not reported in the trade-press article. | Independent (survey by Ideas for Ears, which the article calls a specialist social enterprise; reported by a trade magazine; who paid for the survey is not stated) | Preferred listening system at theatres or concerts? | not published; topic paraphrase | 77% preferred induction loops over infrared or FM. | 143 total respondents; item base not stated | lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey | Paragraph on preferred system | Secondary news report; original questionnaire, recruitment and item bases not available. No Auracast or Wi-Fi comparison; prior experience with each system not reported. | Independent | |
| lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey-poor-experience | Ideas for Ears theatre and concert survey | 2016 | news publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United Kingdom (news report context) | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 143 people with mild-to-profound hearing loss | Not reported in the trade-press article. | Independent (survey by Ideas for Ears, which the article calls a specialist social enterprise; reported by a trade magazine; who paid for the survey is not stated) | Has hearing led to a poor theatre or concert experience? | not published; topic paraphrase | 94% reported a poor experience. | 143 total respondents; item base not stated | lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey | Opening results paragraphs | Secondary news report; original questionnaire, recruitment and item bases not available. | Independent | |
| lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey-missing-provision | Ideas for Ears theatre and concert survey | 2016 | news publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United Kingdom (news report context) | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 143 people with mild-to-profound hearing loss | Not reported in the trade-press article. | Independent (survey by Ideas for Ears, which the article calls a specialist social enterprise; reported by a trade magazine; who paid for the survey is not stated) | Have you been disappointed because suitable provision was unavailable? | not published; topic paraphrase | 83% reported disappointment. | 143 total respondents; item base not stated | lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey | Opening results paragraphs | Secondary news report; original questionnaire, recruitment and item bases not available. | Independent | |
| lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey-provision-wanted | Ideas for Ears theatre and concert survey | 2016 | news publication year; fieldwork dates not reported | United Kingdom (news report context) | listener | preference | venue systems | 143 people with mild-to-profound hearing loss | Not reported in the trade-press article. | Independent (survey by Ideas for Ears, which the article calls a specialist social enterprise; reported by a trade magazine; who paid for the survey is not stated) | Which improvements would make performances more accessible? | not published; topic paraphrase | 66% selected provision of an assistive listening system. | 143 total respondents; item base not stated | lsi-2016-ideas-for-ears-survey | Paragraph listing desired improvements | Secondary news report; original questionnaire, recruitment and item bases not available. Other choices included reduced background music, clearer speech and captions; not a single-system ranking. | Independent | |
| hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index-awareness | HearingLife Hearing Experience Index | 2026 | fieldwork 29 June-27 July 2026 | United States | listener | awareness | venue systems | 1,950 adults aged 60+; national sample 750 plus eight state oversamples | Commissioned online survey; polling firm and recruitment panel not named; oversamples in AZ, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC and PA. | Manufacturer (HearingLife, a US hearing care company with more than 600 centres and part of the Demant Group, which it calls a global leader in hearing healthcare; HearingLife commissioned the survey and does not name the polling firm) | Aware that public venues offer technology to improve hearing? | not published; topic paraphrase | 23% aware. | Adults aged 60+; release does not identify the exact weighted/item base | hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index | Public spaces can do more to make hearing easier | Manufacturer press release; no questionnaire, full tables or weighting details. Results concern all adults aged 60+, unless a hearing-difficulty subgroup is specified. Margin of error stated for 750 national respondents only. | Manufacturer | |
| hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index-never-use | HearingLife Hearing Experience Index | 2026 | fieldwork 29 June-27 July 2026 | United States | listener | use | venue systems | 1,950 adults aged 60+; national sample 750 plus eight state oversamples | Commissioned online survey; polling firm and recruitment panel not named; oversamples in AZ, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC and PA. | Manufacturer (HearingLife, a US hearing care company with more than 600 centres and part of the Demant Group, which it calls a global leader in hearing healthcare; HearingLife commissioned the survey and does not name the polling firm) | Ever used hearing technology or an accommodation in a public place? | not published; topic paraphrase | 84% had never used it. | Adults aged 60+; release does not identify the exact weighted/item base | hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index | Public spaces can do more to make hearing easier | Manufacturer press release; no questionnaire, full tables or weighting details. Results concern all adults aged 60+, unless a hearing-difficulty subgroup is specified. Margin of error stated for 750 national respondents only. Broad accommodation question; not a rate among hearing aid owners or among people offered equipment. | Manufacturer | |
| hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index-design | HearingLife Hearing Experience Index | 2026 | fieldwork 29 June-27 July 2026 | United States | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 1,950 adults aged 60+; national sample 750 plus eight state oversamples | Commissioned online survey; polling firm and recruitment panel not named; oversamples in AZ, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC and PA. | Manufacturer (HearingLife, a US hearing care company with more than 600 centres and part of the Demant Group, which it calls a global leader in hearing healthcare; HearingLife commissioned the survey and does not name the polling firm) | Are public spaces designed with hearing accessibility in mind? | not published; topic paraphrase | 73% agreed public spaces are not designed with hearing accessibility in mind. | Adults aged 60+; item base not specified | hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index | Public spaces can do more to make hearing easier | Manufacturer press release; no questionnaire, full tables or weighting details. Results concern all adults aged 60+, unless a hearing-difficulty subgroup is specified. Margin of error stated for 750 national respondents only. | Manufacturer | |
| hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index-design-difficulty | HearingLife Hearing Experience Index | 2026 | fieldwork 29 June-27 July 2026 | United States | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 1,950 adults aged 60+; national sample 750 plus eight state oversamples | Commissioned online survey; polling firm and recruitment panel not named; oversamples in AZ, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC and PA. | Manufacturer (HearingLife, a US hearing care company with more than 600 centres and part of the Demant Group, which it calls a global leader in hearing healthcare; HearingLife commissioned the survey and does not name the polling firm) | Are public spaces designed with hearing accessibility in mind? | not published; topic paraphrase | 90% agreed public spaces are not designed with hearing accessibility in mind. | Respondents personally experiencing hearing difficulty; count not specified | hearinglife-2026-hearing-experience-index | Public spaces can do more to make hearing easier | Manufacturer press release; no questionnaire, full tables or weighting details. Results concern all adults aged 60+, unless a hearing-difficulty subgroup is specified. Margin of error stated for 750 national respondents only. | Manufacturer | |
| nct-2025-national-churches-survey-loops | National Churches Survey | 2025 | fieldwork 9 May-July 2025 | United Kingdom | venue | availability | venue systems | 3,628 churches, chapels and meeting houses | Voluntary responses via survey web page, denominations, church/heritage networks, media and reminders; weighted by denomination, nation, rurality and listed status. | Independent (National Churches Trust, a UK charity that supports church buildings of all denominations; questionnaire and analysis with the research consultancy Whitestone; the report thanks Yeomans, Ecclesiastical Insurance and the University of York for support that enabled the survey) | Hearing loop/audio loop available at the church? | question not reproduced; reported facility item | 65% reported a hearing loop. | 3,628 overall; weighted church result | nct-2025-national-churches-survey | Facilities available at churches chart; section 2.2B, Accessibility | Self-reported provision; no equipment test, coverage assessment or use rate. Item-specific base not reported. | Independent | |
| cara-2016-parish-disabilities-devices | CARA disabilities in US parishes | 2016 | report year from PDF creation metadata; fieldwork dates not reported | United States | venue | availability | venue systems | 7,002 sampled parishes; 5,242 reached; 789 pastors responded (15%) | Stratified random parish sample; questionnaires emailed and mailed to pastors or pastoral-care leads with repeated follow-ups. | Independent (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a research centre affiliated with Georgetown University; commissioned and funded by Potomac Community Resources, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, the Archdiocese of Washington's Department of Special Needs and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington) | Does the parish provide assistive listening devices? | question not reproduced; topic paraphrase | 36% reported devices available for parishioners. | 789 responding pastors overall; item base not reported | cara-2016-parish-disabilities | Section on parishioner assistance, assistive listening paragraph | Pastor self-report with 15% response rate. Catholic parishes only; no technology, operational check or use frequency. | Independent | |
| cara-2016-parish-disabilities-size | CARA disabilities in US parishes | 2016 | report year from PDF creation metadata; fieldwork dates not reported | United States | venue | availability | venue systems | 7,002 sampled parishes; 5,242 reached; 789 pastors responded (15%) | Stratified random parish sample; questionnaires emailed and mailed to pastors or pastoral-care leads with repeated follow-ups. | Independent (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a research centre affiliated with Georgetown University; commissioned and funded by Potomac Community Resources, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, the Archdiocese of Washington's Department of Special Needs and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington) | Assistive listening availability by parish size? | subgroup analysis; not a separate question | Larger parishes were significantly more likely to have devices than smaller parishes. | 789 responding pastors overall; subgroup bases not reported in the passage | cara-2016-parish-disabilities | Same assistive listening paragraph | Pastor self-report with 15% response rate. Catholic parishes only; no technology, operational check or use frequency. | Independent | |
| cara-2016-parish-disabilities-resources | CARA disabilities in US parishes | 2016 | report year from PDF creation metadata; fieldwork dates not reported | United States | venue | intention | venue systems | 7,002 sampled parishes; 5,242 reached; 789 pastors responded (15%) | Stratified random parish sample; questionnaires emailed and mailed to pastors or pastoral-care leads with repeated follow-ups. | Independent (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a research centre affiliated with Georgetown University; commissioned and funded by Potomac Community Resources, the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, the Archdiocese of Washington's Department of Special Needs and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington) | What additional audio or visual resources would the parish like to provide? | question not reproduced; topic paraphrase | A further one in five pastors wanted additional audio or visual resources. | 789 responding pastors overall; item base not reported | cara-2016-parish-disabilities | Paragraph following assistive listening findings | Pastor self-report with 15% response rate. Catholic parishes only; no technology, operational check or use frequency. Mixed audio/visual category. Does not measure intention to purchase a listening system specifically. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-fitting | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | How often do you fit hearing aids with telecoils? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 30.4%; as needed after needs assessment 42.9%; only at patient request 13.0%; never 2.7%; other 10.9%. | 128-184 answers per item; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Results, fitting-frequency chart | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-verification | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | Do you verify or validate an activated telecoil? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Always 14.3%; most of the time 11.5%; sometimes 12.1%; not often 22.0%; never 40.1%. | 128-184 answers per item; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Results, verification chart | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-consultation | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | Which topics are covered at the initial hearing aid consultation? | paraphrase of reported topics | 33.9% covered assistive listening including telecoils; 91.3% covered Bluetooth connectivity and streaming. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Results, initial consultation topics | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-fitting-education | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | Which topics are covered at the hearing aid fitting? | paraphrase of reported topics | 54.9% covered telecoil use. | 128-184 answers per item; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Results, fitting topics | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-teaching-time | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | When do you spend most time teaching telecoil use? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Follow-up appointments 57.9%; patient questions 47.5%; fitting 31.7%; consultation 21.3%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Results, teaching-time chart | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-rechargeability | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Choosing rechargeability when forced to choose between it and a telecoil: 33.7%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-office-loop | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | No office loop for demonstrations: 30.2%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-local-loops | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | No loops in the local area: 26.0%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-local-neckloops | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | No local venues with FM/infrared and neckloops: 21.3%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-auracast | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Expectation that Auracast will soon replace telecoils: 14.2%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-cosmetics | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Main maker offers no cosmetically appealing telecoil option: 13.6%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-maker | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | practice | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | What prevents fitting telecoils and teaching patients about them? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Main maker omits telecoils: 13.0%. | 128-184 answers per item; multiple selections; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Barriers on Training and Implementation table | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. | Independent | |
| alles-2025-teaching-methods | Alles, La Fratta and Strickland clinician telecoil survey | 2025 | poster PDF creation year; August-November fieldwork year not stated | United States (state-of-practice map) | clinician | preference | shared receiver path | 255 link entries; at most 184 completed responses; 128-184 answers per item | Practising hearing care professionals recruited through Facebook, LinkedIn, ASHA Special Interest Groups 9/11 and ASHA/educational-audiology email networks over 14 weeks. | Independent (Purdue University, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences; the poster names a graduate assistantship with tuition remission and states no other relevant financial interests; the copy read is hosted by the Center for Hearing Access, a nonprofit advocacy group) | How helpful are the listed telecoil education methods? | paraphrase of chart rating task | 71.3% rated one-to-one counselling most helpful; 48.8% rated an office loop demonstration most helpful. | 128-184 answers per item; exact base not printed | alles-2025 | Effective Education Options chart | Self-selected clinician practice reports, not listener preference. Poster does not print each item count; 255 is not a completed-questionnaire sample. Clinicians rate teaching methods; this is not a measured effect on patient learning. | Independent | |
| loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities-systems | Loop Oregon large meeting facilities survey | 2024 | survey began January 2024; report June 2024 | United States (Oregon) | venue | availability | venue systems | 50 listed facilities; 2 no longer meeting venues; 14 nonresponses; 34 responding facilities | Five volunteers reviewed websites and telephoned facilities from an Oregon Business list of the 50 largest meeting facilities. | Independent (Loop Oregon volunteer committee, supported by The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; no separate study funding stated) | What is your assistive listening system? | exact question | 2 reported loops; 6 reported another system that staff could not identify; 26 reported no system or accommodation. | 50 listed facilities; 34 responding facilities | loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities | What We Found, p. 2 | Informal staff reports; no equipment or listening tests. Categories overlap; p. 3 says six facilities have accommodation, while p. 2 lists two loops plus six other systems. Do not derive a combined provision rate from the inconsistent summaries. | Independent | |
| loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities-renter | Loop Oregon large meeting facilities survey | 2024 | survey began January 2024; report June 2024 | United States (Oregon) | venue | practice | venue systems | 50 listed facilities; 2 no longer meeting venues; 14 nonresponses; 34 responding facilities | Five volunteers reviewed websites and telephoned facilities from an Oregon Business list of the 50 largest meeting facilities. | Independent (Loop Oregon volunteer committee, supported by The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; no separate study funding stated) | What is your assistive listening system? | exact opening question; result is volunteered explanation | 7 facilities said event renters were responsible for providing assistance. | 34 responding facilities | loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities | What We Found, p. 2; What We Were Told, p. 3 | Informal staff reports; no equipment or listening tests. Categories overlap; p. 3 says six facilities have accommodation, while p. 2 lists two loops plus six other systems. Reports a staff position, not an assessment of legal duties. | Independent | |
| loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities-fm | Loop Oregon large meeting facilities survey | 2024 | survey began January 2024; report June 2024 | United States (Oregon) | venue | availability | venue systems | 50 listed facilities; 2 no longer meeting venues; 14 nonresponses; 34 responding facilities | Five volunteers reviewed websites and telephoned facilities from an Oregon Business list of the 50 largest meeting facilities. | Independent (Loop Oregon volunteer committee, supported by The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; no separate study funding stated) | What is your assistive listening system? | exact opening question; narrative response | One facility reported four FM packs for meetings. | One account among 34 responding facilities | loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities | What We Were Told, p. 3 | Informal staff reports; no equipment or listening tests. Categories overlap; p. 3 says six facilities have accommodation, while p. 2 lists two loops plus six other systems. | Independent | |
| loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities-change | Loop Oregon large meeting facilities survey | 2024 | survey began January 2024; report June 2024 | United States (Oregon) | venue | intention | venue systems | 50 listed facilities; 2 no longer meeting venues; 14 nonresponses; 34 responding facilities | Five volunteers reviewed websites and telephoned facilities from an Oregon Business list of the 50 largest meeting facilities. | Independent (Loop Oregon volunteer committee, supported by The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; no separate study funding stated) | Staff accounts of system problems and possible improvements. | narrative interview findings; exact eliciting question not identified | Two facilities described efforts to improve systems, citing hygiene concerns or receivers working poorly for some people; a couple expressed interest in loops. | 34 responding facilities; narrative counts as reported | loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities | What We Were Told, p. 3 | Informal staff reports; no equipment or listening tests. Categories overlap; p. 3 says six facilities have accommodation, while p. 2 lists two loops plus six other systems. Operator accounts of patrons and exploratory interest, not measured listener preference or completed purchases. | Independent | |
| loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities-website | Loop Oregon large meeting facilities survey | 2024 | survey began January 2024; report June 2024 | United States (Oregon) | venue | availability | venue systems | 50 listed facilities; 2 no longer meeting venues; 14 nonresponses; 34 responding facilities | Five volunteers reviewed websites and telephoned facilities from an Oregon Business list of the 50 largest meeting facilities. | Independent (Loop Oregon volunteer committee, supported by The John G. Shedd Institute for the Arts; no separate study funding stated) | What accessibility information does the website provide? | website review criterion; not a respondent question | 24 websites had no accessibility information; 14 mentioned needs related to hearing loss. | 50 listed facilities reviewed | loop-oregon-2024-meeting-facilities | What the Websites Had to Say, p. 2 | Informal staff reports; no equipment or listening tests. Categories overlap; p. 3 says six facilities have accommodation, while p. 2 lists two loops plus six other systems. Website information is distinct from installed provision. | Independent | |
| healthwatch-bucks-2023-gp-hearing-loss-main-method | Healthwatch Bucks GP care with hearing loss | 2023 | survey 7 February-30 April 2023; report May 2023 | United Kingdom (Buckinghamshire) | listener | use | venue systems | 90 people across online survey and three focus groups | Social media, community and provider newsletters, Deaf and hard-of-hearing groups; respondents registered with local GP surgeries. | Government (Healthwatch Bucks, Buckinghamshire's statutory health and social care watchdog) | What was your main communication method inside the surgery? | shortened paraphrase of published question | 1 selected a hearing loop. | 85 answers to the communication item | healthwatch-bucks-2023-gp-hearing-loss | Appendix 3, p. 33 | Self-selected local sample; survey and focus-group responses combined. Repeated survey submissions were possible. No equipment checks. Counts only the main method; not everyone who ever used a loop. Project funding is not stated; Government describes the statutory watchdog. | Government | |
| healthwatch-bucks-2023-gp-hearing-loss-preference | Healthwatch Bucks GP care with hearing loss | 2023 | survey 7 February-30 April 2023; report May 2023 | United Kingdom (Buckinghamshire) | listener | preference | venue systems | 90 people across online survey and three focus groups | Social media, community and provider newsletters, Deaf and hard-of-hearing groups; respondents registered with local GP surgeries. | Government (Healthwatch Bucks, Buckinghamshire's statutory health and social care watchdog) | How would you prefer communication inside the surgery? | topic paraphrase; exact prompt not reproduced beside finding | The report says people with loop-capable aids preferred loops to relying on lip reading alone. | 90 participants overall; subgroup count not reported | healthwatch-bucks-2023-gp-hearing-loss | What we heard, p. 11 | Self-selected local sample; survey and focus-group responses combined. Repeated survey submissions were possible. No equipment checks. Qualitative finding without a preference percentage. Project funding is not stated; Government describes the statutory watchdog. | Government | |
| chodkowska-2025-tools | Chodkowska and Skarzynska community pharmacy questionnaire | 2025 | fieldwork March-April 2025 | Poland | venue | availability | venue systems | 130 pharmacists; 129 answered the communication-tools item | Anonymous online and printed questionnaire for community pharmacists aged over 25; recruitment frame and response rate not reported. | Independent (Medical University of Warsaw; the corresponding author is also affiliated with the Center of Hearing and Speech and the Institute of Sensory Organs in Kajetany; the authors state that the study received no external funding and declare no conflicts of interest) | Does your pharmacy use tools to help communication with people with hearing loss? | shortened paraphrase of published question | No 123 (95.3%); do not know 5 (3.9%); yes 1 (0.8%). | 129 pharmacists | chodkowska-2025 | Figure 3, Question 3, p. 62 | Convenience sample of staff, not patients. Tools item combines printed materials, loop stations and amplifiers; cannot establish loop prevalence. | Independent | |
| chodkowska-2025-desired-tools | Chodkowska and Skarzynska community pharmacy questionnaire | 2025 | fieldwork March-April 2025 | Poland | venue | preference | venue systems | 130 pharmacists; 129 answered the communication-tools item | Anonymous online and printed questionnaire for community pharmacists aged over 25; recruitment frame and response rate not reported. | Independent (Medical University of Warsaw; the corresponding author is also affiliated with the Center of Hearing and Speech and the Institute of Sensory Organs in Kajetany; the authors state that the study received no external funding and declare no conflicts of interest) | What solutions would improve communication in the pharmacy? | shortened paraphrase of published question | Written or graphic materials and sound amplification devices were the most frequently mentioned suggestions. | 41 pharmacists answering the open question | chodkowska-2025 | Section 3.4, Question 18, p. 65 | Convenience sample of staff, not patients. Tools item combines printed materials, loop stations and amplifiers; cannot establish loop prevalence. No count for each suggestion and no commitment to buy. | Independent | |
| rnid-2026-clear-signals-direct-audio | RNID Clear Signals transport survey | 2026 | survey fieldwork 16 March-13 April 2026 | United Kingdom | listener | preference | venue systems | 1,762 respondents in final analysis; 283 BSL users | RNID Research Panel, newsletter, social media and contacts plus Survation and Norstat polling; English/BSL questionnaire. | Independent (RNID survey and concept test; report funded by the Motability Foundation) | Which changes would most improve public transport accessibility? Select up to five; item: clearer announcements sent directly to your hearing device. | shortened from reported improvement item | 47% selected this improvement, fourth most selected overall. | 1,762 respondents; respondents could select up to five improvements | rnid-2026-clear-signals | Technical Appendix, p. 44; main report, Delivery of clearer audio announcements | Self-reported priorities, not a trial or technology ranking. Analysis excluded 34 proxy responses and 117 respondents without public-transport use in the preceding two years. No particular transmission technology specified. Recruitment and fieldwork: Technical Appendix pp. 6-8. | Independent | |
| rnid-2026-clear-signals-direct-audio-bsl | RNID Clear Signals transport survey | 2026 | survey fieldwork 16 March-13 April 2026 | United Kingdom | listener | preference | venue systems | 1,762 respondents in final analysis; 283 BSL users | RNID Research Panel, newsletter, social media and contacts plus Survation and Norstat polling; English/BSL questionnaire. | Independent (RNID survey and concept test; report funded by the Motability Foundation) | Which changes would most improve public transport accessibility? Select up to five; item: clearer announcements sent directly to your hearing device. | shortened from reported improvement item | 37% selected this improvement. | 283 BSL users within the 1,762 sample; respondents could select up to five improvements | rnid-2026-clear-signals | Technical Appendix, p. 44 | Self-reported priorities, not a trial or technology ranking. Analysis excluded 34 proxy responses and 117 respondents without public-transport use in the preceding two years. Overlapping subgroup, not an independent sample. | Independent | |
| vocaleyes-2024-state-of-theatre-access-loops | State of Theatre Access 2023 | 2023 | website review April-May 2023; report 2024 | United Kingdom | venue | availability | venue systems | 797 theatre websites screened; 465 theatres met scope | Volunteers reviewed professional theatre websites; eligibility required an upcoming professional theatrical production. | Nonprofit advocacy (three UK access charities, VocalEyes, Stagetext and the Centre for Accessible Environments, coordinated the survey with volunteer researchers who have lived experience of access barriers; written by Louise Fryer, an independent researcher and audio describer; funding not stated) | Does the website indicate a hearing loop? | review criterion; no respondent question | 364 of 465 venues (78%) were recorded as having a hearing loop. | 465 eligible theatres | vocaleyes-2024-state-of-theatre-access | Section 7.2, pp. 21-22 | Website-content audit, not a respondent survey or equipment test. Reviewer judgement and shared websites complicate comparisons. Does not count alternative systems; absence of a loop mention is not proof of absent hearing assistance. | Nonprofit advocacy | |
| pro-audito-2024-eth-user-test-loop-comparison | Pro Audito and ETH Auracast test-day questionnaire | 2024 | summary published 20 June 2024; test date not supplied | Switzerland (organisation context; test site not specified) | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 32 guided-tour respondents; first comparison total not given | Test-day participants; recruitment method not described in the public summary. | Independent (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association, with ETH Zurich students) | How does Auracast speech quality compare with the loop? | not published; translated topic paraphrase | 23 participants rated Auracast equal to or better than the loop. | Total for this comparison not reported | pro-audito-2024-eth-user-test | Was kam beim Test-Tag heraus? | Public summary of questionnaire results; equipment, complete methods and question wording not published here. First-generation equipment. 23 is the favourable count, not a verified sample size; no percentage calculated. | Independent | |
| pro-audito-2024-eth-user-test-tour | Pro Audito and ETH Auracast test-day questionnaire | 2024 | summary published 20 June 2024; test date not supplied | Switzerland (organisation context; test site not specified) | listener | satisfaction | venue systems | 32 guided-tour respondents; first comparison total not given | Test-day participants; recruitment method not described in the public summary. | Independent (Pro Audito Schweiz, Swiss hearing-loss association, with ETH Zurich students) | Rate Auracast audio quality after the guided tour versus no listening system. | not published; translated topic paraphrase | 31 of 32 rated it good or very good. | 32 guided-tour participants | pro-audito-2024-eth-user-test | Was kam beim Test-Tag heraus? | Public summary of questionnaire results; equipment, complete methods and question wording not published here. First-generation equipment. Comparator was no assistive system; this is not the loop comparison. | Independent | |
| consumer-reports-2026-telecoils-telecoil | Consumer Reports member hearing aid survey | 2023 | survey year stated in the May 2026 article | United States publication context; survey country distribution not reported | listener | awareness | shared receiver path | Not reported for the telecoil finding | Consumer Reports members who answered its hearing aid survey; invitation and sampling procedures not described in the article. | Independent (Consumer Reports, a nonprofit consumer organisation; article by Catherine Roberts, a health and science journalist on its staff, quoting loop advocates from the Center for Hearing Access and HLAA and an assistive listening installer) | Does your prescription hearing aid have a telecoil? | not published; topic paraphrase | 10% reported a telecoil. | Respondents with prescription hearing aids; count not reported | consumer-reports-2026-telecoils | Are Telecoils Going Away?, paragraph on the 2023 member survey | Article summary of member self-reports; no sample size, question wording or verification of device features. | Independent |
No matching rows.
Codebook
finding_idUnique source-id-plus-suffix key. Preserve it when correcting a finding.
surveySurvey name or edition; identifies retrospective comparisons such as MarkeTrak 9.
yearFour-digit year, interpreted with
year_basis.year_basisStates whether the year is fieldwork, survey edition, publication or file metadata. Edition/publication years are not substituted for known fieldwork dates.
countryRespondent or venue geography when reported. Recruitment or publication context is labelled when the actual respondent distribution is unavailable.
response_grouplistener,venueorclinician.venueincludes operator/staff responses and website audits.finding_typepreference,use,awareness,satisfaction,availability,intentionorpractice. Intention is reported separately from completed action.scopevenue systems,shared receiver pathorshared-path context. Telecoil ownership and fitting concern the common receiving path and do not measure venue-system use. The RERC hypothetical app item is broader context.sample_sizeOverall study sample and relevant stages/subsamples. A total sample is not automatically the denominator of a result.
recruitmentHow respondents or venues were selected or reached; missing methods are stated.
funding_detailFunding and producer context retained from the earlier compilation; the funding column carries the current source-record labels.
question_shortShort question, item or task identifying what elicited the finding. Read with
question_wording; shortened paraphrases are not verbatim transcripts.question_wordingDistinguishes a shortened published question, described task, unavailable questionnaire, website criterion or subsequent analysis. No unavailable wording is presented as a quotation.
resultReported count, percentage, scale score or qualitative finding, with response labels. Calculated percentages are explicitly marked and show numerator and denominator.
result_baseItem/subgroup denominator, exclusions and multi-select status where known. Unknown bases are not reconstructed from rounded percentages.
source_idLibrary source identifiers supporting the row, separated by semicolons. Feature-specific and supporting-source columns retain their more precise roles.
supporting_source_idsAdditional library ids for methods or interpretation, separated by semicolons; empty when unnecessary. Currently used for CCAA's companion report.
source_locatorOriginal page, section, table or model entry supporting the row; source names identify locations when several originals are used.
limitationsRow-specific interpretation limits and source-record reading limits. Missing information is not reported, never an inferred zero.
fundingSource-record funding labels. With multiple primary sources, each label is followed by its source id in brackets. Funding detail remains in funding_detail where supplied by the earlier compilation.
Compilation and interpretation
surveys.csv was compiled on 2026-10-13. It contains 112 findings, using 20 existing result-source records and the CCAA report as an additional source for methods and interpretation (21 records in total). All findings were checked against the private archived originals. It is a research input for review, with no new site page or translated question summary.
One row represents a question's response distribution, a particular item or subgroup, or a clearly identified qualitative finding. A distribution can contain several answer categories in its result cell. It is not one row per respondent. There are 87 listener rows, 12 venue rows and 13 clinician rows. The table covers the surveys named in q23, plus Wireless RERC, Consumer Reports, local healthcare and meeting-facility surveys, theatre website information, transport priorities and the Pro Audito test-day questionnaire. It does not attempt to turn every listening experiment, installation check or individual testimonial into a survey.
The file is UTF-8, comma-delimited, with a single header, double-quoted fields and LF line endings. Import as text: results deliberately retain counts, qualifiers and scales rather than forcing incompatible observations into one numeric column. There are no formulas. Not reported means missing information, never zero. Only supporting_source_ids may be empty. Rows are grouped by source and related question; they are not ranked by evidence strength or technology.
Interpreting the findings
- Listener and buyer evidence: CCAA's council-chamber item is a hypothetical listener recommendation. It remains a listener preference row. CCAA's next-device feature questions and Harkins and Tucker's universal receiver question describe personal purchase intentions. NCT/CARA provision and Loop Oregon's staff accounts are separate venue rows. None establishes a representative pattern of venue purchasing decisions. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2023; Harkins and Tucker 2007; National Churches Trust 2025; Holland et al. 2016; Loop Oregon Committee 2024)
- CCAA denominators: The loop-use result is 367/719 always and 496/719 always or usually. The latter gives the report's rounded 69%. The council question has 1,335 answers, including 531 unable to recommend; 804 named a system, and 312 selected a listening system. Loop shares using those different bases are not interchangeable. The 251 substantive Wi-Fi delay ratings cannot be assumed to come from the 217 people reporting Wi-Fi experience. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2023; Committee for Communication Access in… 2024)
- Fieldwork and item bases: CCAA's survey ran from 5 to 24 September 2023; MarkeTrak 2022 was fielded in November-December 2021. The CSV uses those fieldwork dates while retaining survey edition names. Harkins and Tucker's audience-benefit comparison has 274 users, as printed in Figure 2. RNID's transport-priority question allowed up to five improvements, so its percentages are overlapping selections. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2023; Picou 2022; Harkins and Tucker 2007; RNID 2026)
- Contradictions remain visible: Kochkin's all-three-system preference percentages sum to 105.6%; they are reproduced without repair. Loop Oregon's two provision summaries disagree, so the CSV gives the reported categories without constructing a combined rate. (Kochkin et al. 2014; Loop Oregon Committee 2024)
- Feature awareness and satisfaction: MarkeTrak, EuroTrak and Consumer Reports describe what owners know about their devices. Telecoil presence is not verified. Overall hearing aid satisfaction by telecoil ownership is an association, and EuroTrak's telecoil ratings include purposes beyond venues. Its ownership, use and satisfaction charts have different bases. (Picou 2020; Picou 2022; Sobek Dobyan and Powers 2025; Anovum 2025; Roberts 2026)
- Responses are not independent replications: Repeated rows and subgroups share respondents. CCAA charts/report are the same survey, Kochkin's second survey is a follow-up, and MarkeTrak 9 is read through a later comparison table. Do not pool row percentages or count rows as studies. (Committee for Communication Access in… 2024; Kochkin et al. 2014; Picou 2022)
- Different evidence types: Pro Audito's questionnaire follows an equipment trial; VocalEyes checks websites; HearingLife supplies a manufacturer press release; Alles surveys clinicians. Their findings retain those contexts and cannot be treated as a common measure of listener preference. (Pro Audito Schweiz; questionnaire evaluation by ETH Zurich students Kaufmann R and Brasser A; product tests by Graf 2024; Fryer 2024; HearingLife 2026; Alles et al. 2025)
To update, read the archived original and check its item wording, response base and date before changing a row. Preserve older survey waves and resolve record conflicts explicitly. The q23 research report lists reading limits, omitted material and concerns for review.
Change log
- 2026-10-13: Migrated 112 rows with codebook and source provenance into the data section.
- 2026-10-14: Declared the existing row key for stable question links; corrected the EuroTrak telecoil row’s recruitment and weighting description against pages 8-9.
Cite this table
Equal Access Audio. “Listener, clinician and venue surveys” Assistive Listening Knowledge Base. Version 1.1. Compiled 13 October 2026; updated 14 October 2026. https://assistivelisteningknowledgebase.org/data/surveys/ (accessed the date you read it).