Work

Understanding Public Perception of Over‐the‐Counter Hearing Aids: A Sentiment and Thematic Analysis of Consumer Reviews

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Objective To analyze public perceptions of over‐the‐counter (OTC) hearing aids through sentiment and thematic analysis of online consumer reviews and their changes over time. Study Design Sentiment and thematic analysis. Setting Online reviews from third‐party and product websites. Methods All English online consumer reviews posted between 2016 and 2024 for OTC hearing aids (83 models) were recorded (n = 21,727). Sentiment analysis was performed using Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER), a rule‐based sentiment analysis tool incorporating natural language processing. VADER provides scores for each review ranging from −1 (most negative), 0 (neutral), to 1 (most positive). Additional thematic analysis was performed for the top 100 most positive, neutral, and negative reviews (n = 300). Results Overall, mean (SD) VADER sentiment score of online reviews was generally positive at 0.587 (0.411). Multivariable regression analysis showed that higher VADER scores were associated with higher‐priced and behind‐the‐ear (BTE) type hearing aids. Although there was a significant increase in a number of reviews after the Food and Drug Administration's new establishment of the OTC hearing aid category in 2022, the mean sentiment scores slightly decreased (β =−.10, [95%CI: −0.12 to −0.09]). Thematic analysis revealed that positive sentiments highlighted the affordability and time‐saving benefits of OTC hearing aids as alternatives to prescription models. Negative sentiments centered on sound quality, challenges with customer service, and inadequate amplification for those with severe hearing loss. Conclusion Customers generally viewed OTC hearing aids positively, while mixed experiences were present. When used as indicated for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss, OTC hearing aids may offer a viable alternative to prescription devices, improving accessibility and affordability.

Source: OTO Open

DOI: 10.1002/oto2.70131