Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Insufficient Evidence Does Not Mean Insufficient Benefit

Association between individual, household, and area-level socioeconomic status indicators and sensorineural hearing loss in adults in southwest Iran: a population-based study

Introduction

Hearing loss is the fourth most common chronic disease, but studies on the relationship between hearing loss and socioeconomic factors are limited. We aimed to examine the association between hearing loss and socioeconomic factors among 35-70 year adults in southwest Iran.

Materials and methods

This population-based cross-sectional study was conducted in the baseline of Hoveyzeh cohort study in adults aged 35-70 in southwest Iran between 2017 and 2021. Information on socioeconomic factors, demographic characteristics, comorbidities, family history of hearing loss, and noise exposure was collected. We assessed the relationship between three levels of socioeconomic factors (individual, household, and area level) with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Multiple logistic regression was used to adjust the potential confounders.

Results

Among a total of 1,365 assessed participants, 485 patients were diagnosed as having hearing loss, and the other 880 individuals were diagnosed without hearing loss, which is considered the case and the control group, respectively. At the individual level of socioeconomic, the odds of having hearing loss in the participants with high school education and diploma, [OR = 0.51 (95%CI:0.28-0.92)], and the individuals with university education [OR = 0.44 (95%CI:0.22-0.87)] were significantly lower than the illiterate participants. At the household socioeconomic level, the odds of having hearing loss were lower for those with poor [OR = 0.63 (95%CI:0.41-0.97)] and moderate [OR = 0.62 (95%CI:0.41-0.94)] wealth status vs. those with the poorest wealth status. In the area level socioeconomic, although the odds of hearing loss in the residents of affluent areas were slightly lower than the residents of deprived areas, there was no significant difference among the groups.

Conclusion

The individuals with hearing loss may have insufficient education and income.

Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule

Importance

Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults.

Objective

To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting.

Exposures

Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective.

Results

The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.

Hearing Loss Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Refugees and Asylees in an Urban Clinic, 2014-2017

Objectives

First, to determine whether using a single-question subjective hearing screen vs gold standard audiometric evaluation is effective for hearing loss screening in refugees and asylees. Second, to understand the clinical pathways for hearing loss diagnosis and treatment.

Study Design

This is a case series with chart review from January 2014 to December 2017.

Setting

A large urban safety net primary care clinic in San Francisco, California.

Methods

Patients were included who had a medical record and completed single-question subjective hearing screening and audiometric evaluation during refugee health examinations. An overall 349 patients met all inclusion criteria.

Results

Out of 349 patients, 48% were male; the median age was 29.3 years (SD, 15.1). The majority came from Central or South America (n = 148, 42%) and China (n = 79, 23%). Among all patients, 10 (3%) failed the subjective hearing screen, and 18 (5%) failed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the subjective hearing screen, 4 (40%) passed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the audiometric evaluation, 12 (66%) passed subjective screening, and only 5 (28%) received a diagnostic audiogram, with 4 diagnosed with hearing loss and 1 receiving hearing aids. The sensitivity of the subjective screening question was 33% and the specificity 99% as compared with audiometric evaluation.

Conclusion

Audiometric evaluation is relatively inexpensive and easily administered, while a single subjective question is a poor screening tool. Hearing loss is undertreated in this population. Ensuring appropriate hearing loss screening, diagnosis, and treatment in this population is paramount to improving quality of life.

Enhancing Clinical Visibility of Hearing Loss in Cognitive Decline

Background: Hearing loss is the largest potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia and is highly prevalent among older adults, yet it goes largely unreported, unidentified, and untreated, at great cost to health and quality of life. Hearing screening is a proven cost-effective solution to overcome delays in its identification and management yet is not typically recommended by physicians for older adults. Objective: To demonstrate the feasibility and value of hearing screening for older adults at risk for dementia in order to enhance physicians’ awareness of hearing loss and improve access to timely hearing care. Methods: Patients referred to two academic medical clinics for memory disorders were offered hearing screening as part of clinic protocol. Patients with hearing loss were recruited to the study if they consented to a post-appointment telephone interview and chart review. Memory Clinic physicians were surveyed about the usefulness of the screening information and referral of patients with hearing loss to audiology. Results: Hearing loss was reliably detected in Memory Clinic patients with both in-office and online screening tools. Physicians reported that screening enhanced their awareness of hearing loss and increased the referral rate to audiology. Conclusion: Hearing screening in Memory Clinic patients is a useful component of clinic protocol that facilitates timely access to management and addresses an important risk factor for dementia.