Associations Between Hearing Health and Well-Being in Unilateral Hearing Impairment

Agreement between audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory differs by demographic factors

BACKGROUND

New standardised measures of self-reported hearing difficulty can be validated against audiometric hearing loss. This study reports the influence of demographic factors (age, sex, race and socioeconomic position (SEP)) on the agreement between audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty.

METHODS

Participants were 1558 adults (56.9% female; 20.0% racial minority; mean age 63.7 (SD 14.1) years) from the Medical University of South Carolina Longitudinal Cohort Study of Age-Related Hearing Loss (1988-current). Audiometric hearing loss was defined as the average of pure-tone thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 kHz >25 dB HL in the worse ear. Self-reported hearing difficulty was defined as ≥6 points on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) or RHHI screening version (RHHI-S). We report agreement between audiometric hearing loss and the RHHI(-S), defined by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and observed minus predicted prevalence. Estimates were stratified to age group, sex, race and SEP proxy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty were 49.0% and 48.8%, respectively. Accuracy was highest among participants aged <60 (77.6%) versus 60-70 (71.4%) and 70+ (71.9%) years, for white (74.6%) versus minority (68.0%) participants and was similar by sex and SEP proxy. Generally, agreement of audiometric hearing loss and RHHI(-S) self-reported hearing difficulty differed by age, sex and race.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationships of audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty vary by demographic factors. These relationships were similar for the full (RHHI) and screening (RHHI-S) versions of this tool.

Reported Hearing Outcome Measures Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Scoping Review

Background  Evidence on hearing outcome measures when assessing hearing preservation following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for adults with vestibular schwannoma (VS) has not previously been collated in a structured review. Objective  The objective of the present study was to perform a scoping review of the evidence regarding the choice of hearing outcomes and other methodological characteristics following SRS for adults with VS. Methods  The protocol was registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search of five online databases revealed 1,591 studies, 247 of which met the inclusion criteria. Results  The majority of studies ( n  = 213, 86%) were retrospective cohort or case series with the remainder ( n  = 34, 14%) prospective cohort. Pure-tone audiometry and speech intelligibility were included in 222 (90%) and 158 (64%) studies, respectively, often summarized within a classification scheme and lacking procedural details. Fifty-nine (24%) studies included self-report measures. The median duration of follow-up, when reported, was 43 months (interquartile range: 29, 4-150). Conclusion  Evidence on hearing disability after SRS for VS is based on low-quality studies which are inherently susceptible to bias. This review has highlighted an urgent need for a randomized controlled trial assessing hearing outcomes in patients with VS managed with radiosurgery or radiological observation. Similarly, consensus and coproduction of a core outcome set to determine relevant hearing and communication outcome domains is required. This will ensure that patient priorities, including communication abilities in the presence of background noise and reduced participation restrictions, are addressed.

Single-Sided Deafness and Hearing Rehabilitation Modalities: Contralateral Routing of Signal Devices, Bone Conduction Devices, and Cochlear Implants

Single sided deafness (SSD) is characterized by significant sensorineural hearing loss, severe or profound, in only one ear. SSD adversely affects various aspects of auditory perception, including causing impairment in sound localization, difficulties with speech comprehension in noisy environments, and decreased spatial awareness, resulting in a significant decline in overall quality of life (QoL). Several treatment options are available for SSD, including cochlear implants (CI), contralateral routing of signal (CROS), and bone conduction devices (BCD). The lack of consensus on outcome domains and measurement tools complicates treatment comparisons and decision-making. This narrative overview aims to summarize the treatment options available for SSD in adult and pediatric populations, discussing their respective advantages and disadvantages. Rerouting devices (CROS and BCD) attenuate the effects of head shadow and improve sound awareness and signal-to-noise ratio in the affected ear; however, they cannot restore binaural hearing. CROS devices, being non-implantable, are the least invasive option. Cochlear implantation is the only strategy that can restore binaural hearing, delivering significant improvements in speech perception, spatial localization, tinnitus control, and overall QoL. Comprehensive preoperative counseling, including a discussion of alternative technologies, implications of no treatment, expectations, and auditory training, is critical to optimizing therapeutic outcomes.

Outcomes from 7 years of a direct to audiology referral pathway

Background

The direct to audiology via ENT referral pathway was designed to enhance patient access to audiology services. The pathway is recommended in the Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery: a model of care for Ireland report, published in 2019.

Aims

This study aimed to review the outcomes of all patients that attended our institution over the last seven years.

Methods

A retrospective review of the direct to audiology referral service from March 2014 to December 2021 was conducted. Outcomes were defined by the pathway each patient took following attendance at the audiology clinic. Patients were either (i) discharged, (ii) referred for hearing aid(s) or (iii) identified as candidates for further diagnostic assessments, including a follow-up at the ENT outpatient clinic.

Results

During the time frame, 419 patients were triaged to the pathway. The average wait time was 13 days. The average age was 53 years (range 16–96 years, SD = 6.1). Approximately 34% (n = 143) of all patients referred were discharged back to the GP by the audiologist, but 66% (n = 276) presented with ‘red flags’ and needed further investigation in the ENT clinic, with 30% (n = 73) ultimately requiring imaging studies. Over half (n = 254, 61%) were referred for hearing aids.

Conclusion

The direct to audiology initiative has proven effective at reducing waiting times for ENT patients solely in need of audiological intervention. Approximately one-third of these referrals to the ENT service can be assessed comprehensively in the audiology clinic, thereby reducing the demand for ENT clinics, enhancing service provision and expediting onwards referral for amplification.