Success and failure factors for hearing-aid prescription: Results of a French national survey

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Globally, assistive technology (AT) is used by over 1 billion people, but the prevalence of needs and access to AT in specific countries or regions is largely unknown. This scoping review summarises the evidence available on the prevalence of needs, access and coverage of AT in the World Health Organisation European Region and the barriers and facilitators to its use.

METHODS

Relevant publications were identified using a combination of two strategies: 1) a systematic search for AT publications in five scientific literature databases; and 2) consultations with 76 of the Region's AT experts.

RESULT

The search strategies yielded 103 publications, 62 of them identified by the systematic search. The included publications were predominantly from six countries, and 18 countries were unrepresented. Information on AT use for specific functional impairments was present in 57 publications: AT for hearing impairment in 14 publications; vision in 12; mobility, 12; communication, 11; self-care, 6; and cognition, 2. AT needs for vision and hearing impairment were more likely to be met (1-87% and 5-90%, respectively) compared with communication and cognition impairments (10-60% and 58%, respectively). The barriers and facilitators to AT access described were linked to accessibility, affordability and acceptability.

CONCLUSION

Data on AT prevalence and coverage are limited in both quantity and quality. Agreed-upon definitions of functional impairment and assistive product categories and standards for data collection are needed to facilitate data comparisons and to build a more representative picture of AT needs and coverage.Implications for rehabilitationComprehensive and disaggregated data concerning the prevalence of needs and coverage of AT is needed to enable the development of responsive policies and actions.The literature available on the prevalence of needs and coverage of AT in the WHO European Region is primarily focussed on a small subset of countries and comparisons between studies are limited due to the use of different data collection strategies.Evidence concerning barriers and facilitators to AT access across countries is more consistent and can be organised across the key themes of accessibility, affordability and acceptability of AT.There is a need for consensus among multiple AT actors on standardised definitions for functional impairment and assistive product categories and standards for data collection to enable a more representative picture to be built of AT needs and coverage across the WHO European Region and globally.

Factors Impacting the Use or Rejection of Hearing Aids-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the prevalence of adherence to hearing aids and determine their rejection causes.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting terms for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed an electronic search using PubMed, BVS, and Embase.

RESULTS

21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. They analyzed a total of 12,696 individuals. We observed that the most common causes for positive adherence to hearing aid use included having a higher degree of hearing loss, patients being aware of their condition, and requiring the device in their daily life. The most common causes for rejection were the lack of perceived benefits or discomfort with the use of the device. The results from the meta-analysis show a prevalence of patients who used their hearing aid of 0.623 (95% CI 0.531, 0.714). Both groups are highly heterogeneous (I2 = 99.31% in each group, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of patients (38%) do not use their hearing aid devices. Homogeneous multicenter studies using the same methodology are needed to analyze the causes of rejection of hearing aids.

The Use of Person-centered Language in Medical Research Articles Focusing on Hearing Loss or Deafness

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss represents one of the most common disabilities worldwide. Despite its prevalence, there is a degree of stigmatization within the public's perception of, or attitude toward, individuals diagnosed with hearing loss or deafness. This stigmatization is propagated by the way hearing loss is referenced, especially in writing. Although the medical community is familiar with hearing loss, medical research is not consistently compliant with nonstigmatizing terminology, like person-centered language (PCL). This study aims to quantify the use of PCL in medical research related to hearing loss.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of articles related to hearing loss was performed using PubMed as the primary search engine. The search encompassed articles from January 1, 2016, to November 17, 2020. Journals had to have at least 20 search returns to be included in this study. The primary search resulted in 2392 articles from 31 journals. The sample was then randomized and the first 500 articles were chosen for data extraction. Article screening was performed systematically. Each article was evaluated for predetermined non-PCL terminology to determine adherence to the American Medical Association Manual of Style (AMAMS) guidelines. Articles were included if they involved research with human participants and were available in English. Commentaries and editorials were excluded.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-two articles were included in this study. Results from this study indicate that 326 articles were not adherent to AMAMS guidelines for PCL (326/482; 68%). Emotional language (i.e., burden, suffer, afflicted) was employed to reference hearing loss in 114 articles (114/482; 24%). Non-PCL adherent labels (i.e., impaired and handicapped) were identified in 46% (221/482) of articles related to hearing loss or deafness. Sixty-seven articles (67/482; 14%) used person-first language in reference to the word "deaf" and 15 articles (15/482; 3%) used "deaf" as a label.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings from this cross-sectional analysis, the majority of medical research articles that address hearing loss contain terminology that does not conform to PCL guidelines, as established by AMAMS. Many respected organizations, like the American Medical Association, have encouraged the use of PCL in interactions between patient and medical provider. This encompasses communication in person and in writing. This recommendation stems from the understood role that language plays in how we build impressions of others, especially in a medical context. Implementing PCL to destigmatize language used in reference to deafness or hearing loss is essential to increase advocacy and protect the autonomy of these individuals.

Evaluating Equity Through the Social Determinants of Hearing Health

Hearing loss in adults is a significant public health problem throughout the world. Undiagnosed and untreated hearing loss causes a measurable impact on health and social, occupational, and emotional well-being of those affected. In spite of a wide array of health care resources to identify and manage hearing loss, there exist vast disparities in outcomes, as well as access to and utilization of hearing healthcare. Hearing rehabilitation outcomes may vary widely among different populations and there is a pressing need to understand, in a broader sense, the factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which is defined by the World Health Organization as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age." According to Healthy People 2030, these determinants can be broken into the following domains: healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and built environment. This article defines these domains and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains, as it pertains to hearing health and healthcare. Herein, we review foundational sources on the social determinants of health and hearing-related research focused on the topic. Further consideration is given to how these factors can be evaluated in a systematic fashion and be incorporated into translational research and hearing health care.

Biopsychosocial Classification of Hearing Health Seeking in Adults Aged Over 50 Years in England

Objectives:

Approximately 10 to 35% of people with a hearing impairment own a hearing aid. The present study aims to identify barriers to obtaining a hearing aid and inform future interventions by examining the biopsychosocial characteristics of adults aged 50+ according to 7 categories: (i) Did not report hearing difficulties, (ii) Reported hearing difficulties, (iii) Told a healthcare professional about experiencing hearing difficulties, (iv) Referred for a hearing assessment, (v) Offered a hearing aid, (vi) Accepted a hearing aid, and (vii) Reported using a hearing aid regularly.

Design:

The research was conducted using the English Longitudinal Study of Aging wave 7 with data obtained from 9666 adults living in England from June 2014 to May 2015. Cross-sectional data were obtained from a subset of 2845 participants aged 50 to 89 years of age with a probable hearing impairment measured by hearing screening (indicating a hearing threshold of >20 dB HL at 1 kHz or >35 dB HL at 3 kHz in the better ear). Classification according to hearing health-seeking category was via participants’ self-report. Participants in each category were compared with people in all subsequent categories to examine the associations between each category and biopsychosocial correlates (sex, age, ethnicity, educational level, wealth, audiometric hearing level, self-reported health status, cognitive performance, attitudes to aging, living alone, and engagement in social activities) using multiple logistic regression.

Results:

The proportions of individuals (N = 2845) in categories i to vii were 40.0% (n = 1139), 14.0% (n = 396), 4.5% (n = 129), 4.0% (n = 114), 1.2% (n = 34), 7.7% (n = 220), and 28.6% (n = 813), respectively. Severity of hearing impairment was the only factor predictive of all the categories of hearing health-seeking that could be modeled. Other correlates predictive of at least one category of hearing health-seeking included sex, age, self-reported heath, participation in social activities, and cognitive function.

Conclusions:

For the first time, it was shown that 40.0% of people with an audiometrically identified probable hearing impairment did not report hearing difficulties. Each of the five categories of hearing health-seeking that could be modeled had different drivers and consequently, interventions likely should vary depending on the category of hearing health-seeking.

Hearing aids are still beneficial to patients, even if they have a low speech discrimination

PURPOSE

A speech discrimination score (SDS) is a predictor for the successful use of hearing aids (HAs). This study is to evaluate the efficacy of HAs in patients with a low or poor SDS.

METHODS

We enrolled 186 ears using HAs, with an unaided SDS ≤ 64%. They were categorized into four groups by their unaided SDS: 0-16% for Group 1, 20-32% for Group 2, 36-48% for Group 3, and 52-64% for Group 4. Aided SDS was measured 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the use. The Hearing In Noise Test (HINT), the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) were assessed.

RESULTS

The SDS increased by 27.4% (12.0 to 39.4%) in Group 1, 26.4% (26.9 to 53.3%) in Group 2, 24.6% (42.2 to 66.8%) in Group 3, and 10.5% (59.5% to 70.0%) in Group 4. HINT composite scores significantly decreased from 22.5 to 15.1 in Group 1, 9.4 to 7.0 in Group 2, and 4.4 to 2.4 in Group 4. Total HHIE score changed from 48.2 to 24.2 in Group 1, 64.0 to 32.8 in Group 2, 37.1 to 16.6 in Group 3, and 55.8 to 40.1 in Group 4 (P < 0.05 in Groups 2, 3, and 4).

CONCLUSION

In patients with a low SDS, a significant increase in SDS was achieved after the use of HAs, and subjective satisfaction was also acceptable. Low SDS might not be a contraindication for HAs.

Gender differences in improvement of older-person-specific quality of life after hearing-aid fitting

BACKGROUND

Age-related hearing loss is the third most common reason for disability in the world and has a significant impact on quality of life (QoL) amongst older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the QoL assessment in older-person-specific domains differs between older men and women with age-related hearing loss before and after hearing-aid fittings.

METHODS

The present study was carried out with 105 hearing-impaired outpatients (aged ≥ 60 years) before and after hearing-aid fittings at the University Hospital Olomouc, Czech Republic. The instrument used was the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Older Adults module (WHOQOL-Old). It was completed before hearing-aid fittings and after the first check-up hearing-aid adjustment. The Wilcoxon paired test multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate changes in the QoL after hearing-aid fittings. The distributions of men a women into three subgroups, improved, unchanged, and worsened in each domain, were compared using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

A significant QoL improvement when fitting a hearing-aid in the area of Sensory abilities was confirmed in both men and women (p < 0.001). In Autonomy, a significant improvement was recorded only amongst men (p = 0.010). In Past, present and future activities and Social participation, a significant improvement was only recorded amongst women (p = 0.029; p = 0.001). Significant differences were revealed between men and women in changes for Sensory Abilities (p = 0.019), Social Participation (p = 0.036) and Intimacy (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that there are gender differences in QoL improvement amongst people with age-related hearing loss after hearing-aid fitting.

Is Listening in Noise Worth It? The Neurobiology of Speech Recognition in Challenging Listening Conditions

This review examines findings from functional neuroimaging studies of speech recognition in noise to provide a neural systems level explanation for the effort and fatigue that can be experienced during speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Neuroimaging studies of speech recognition consistently demonstrate that challenging listening conditions engage neural systems that are used to monitor and optimize performance across a wide range of tasks. These systems appear to improve speech recognition in younger and older adults, but sustained engagement of these systems also appears to produce an experience of effort and fatigue that may affect the value of communication. When considered in the broader context of the neuroimaging and decision making literature, the speech recognition findings from functional imaging studies indicate that the expected value, or expected level of speech recognition given the difficulty of listening conditions, should be considered when measuring effort and fatigue. The authors propose that the behavioral economics or neuroeconomics of listening can provide a conceptual and experimental framework for understanding effort and fatigue that may have clinical significance.

Factors involved in access and utilization of adult hearing healthcare: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Hearing loss is a public health concern, yet hearing healthcare disparities exist and influence utilization of rehabilitation services. The objective of this review was to systematically analyze the published literature on motivators, barriers, and compliance factors affecting adult patient access and utilization of hearing rehabilitation healthcare.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles. Eligible studies were those containing original, peer-reviewed research in English pertaining to factors affecting adult hearing healthcare access and utilization of hearing aids and cochlear implantation. The search encompassed 1990 to 2015.

METHODS

Two investigators independently reviewed all articles and extracted data. Specific variables regarding access to care and compliance to recommended care were extracted from each study.

RESULTS

Thirty articles were reviewed. The factors affecting access and utilization of hearing rehabilitation could be classified into motivators, barriers, and compliance in treatment or device use. The key motivators to seek care include degree of hearing loss, self-efficacy, family support, and self-recognition of hearing loss. The primary barriers to care were financial limitations, stigma of hearing devices, inconvenience, competing chronic health problems, and unrealistic expectations. Compliance is most affected by self-efficacy, education level, and engagement in the rehabilitation process.

CONCLUSION

Accessing hearing healthcare is complicated by multiple factors. Considering the current climate in healthcare policy and legislation toward improved access of care, a deeper understanding of motivators, barriers, and compliance factors can aid in delivery of effective and efficient hearing healthcare. Laryngoscope, 127:1187-1194, 2017.

Fatores biológicos e socioculturais na avaliação do vocabulário receptivo em português oral de deficientes auditivos pós-linguais

Objetivo Avaliar o vocabulário receptivo em deficientes auditivos pós-linguais, analisando a influência de fatores biológicos e socioculturais. Métodos Realizou-se um estudo transversal com 78 indivíduos deficientes auditivos, com perda auditiva pós-lingual, neurossensorial, simétrica e idade entre 12 e 70 anos (média= 51,3 ± 21,6; mediana=53), usuários do português brasileiro como primeira língua. Foram levantados dados socioculturais, incluídos o nível de escolaridade e o hábito de leitura, e as características da perda auditiva e do dispositivo auditivo eletrônico utilizado (AASI ou Implante Coclear). Para a avaliação do vocabulário receptivo, foi utilizado o Teste de Vocabulário por figura, USP–Tvfusp92o. Resultados O desempenho médio dos deficientes auditivos no teste de vocabulário receptivo foi de 82,9 pontos (DP=26,0), apresentando correlação significativa com a escolaridade, hábito de leitura e uso de dispositivos auditivos eletrônicos. Quando comparados aos resultados normativos do teste, 51,8% dos deficientes auditivos demonstraram vocabulário receptivo classificado como rebaixado ou muito rebaixado. Conclusão Os fatores socioculturais, escolaridade e hábito de leitura e o uso de dispositivos eletrônicos influenciam positivamente o vocabulário receptivo oral. Já os fatores biológicos idade, grau da deficiência e tempo de aquisição da deficiência auditiva não tiveram influência sobre o mesmo. A maior parte dos participantes da amostra teve desempenho rebaixado ou muito rebaixado, quando comparados a ouvintes de 7 a 10 anos.