Prevalence of Untreated Hearing Loss by Income among Older Adults in the United States

Trends and projections of mild and moderate hearing loss among adolescents, young adults, middle-aged adults and age-standardised population in Malaysia from 1996 to 2030

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the prevalence of mild and moderate hearing loss spanning three decades, from 1990 to 2019, and to project the anticipated trends from 2020 to 2030 among adolescents, young adults, middle-aged adults, and age-standardised groups in Malaysia.

METHODS

This study involved secondary data analysis of mild and moderate hearing loss prevalence over 30 years among the Malaysian population aged 15-19, 25-29, 35-39, 45-49, and age-standardised groups. Subsequently, three time-series models were evaluated and the best models with the minimal Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) were selected for projecting the prevalence of hearing loss until 2030.

RESULTS

A relatively stable trend of mild hearing loss prevalence and gradual decline of moderate hearing loss were observed across all age groups throughout the study period. The prevalence of mild hearing loss was consistently higher than moderate hearing loss across all age groups, with its prevalence increasing with age. The projected prevalence of hearing loss exhibits a gradual declining trend in the future for all age groups, except for mild hearing loss for the 15-19-year-old group.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 30 years, there has been a relatively stable and slightly declining trend in the prevalence of mild and moderate hearing loss among the Malaysian population, respectively with projections showing a slow reduction in the future. These findings highlighted the need for identifying the best intervention and vulnerable age groups, directing increased resources and prioritization towards them.

Association Between Social Determinants of Health and Hearing Loss and Hearing Intervention in Older US Adults

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing assistance device use among older adults in the United States, and assess for associations with select social determinants of health (SDOH).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional US population-based study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-March 2020 (pre-pandemic) data.

SETTING

Non-institutionalized civilian adult US population.

METHODS

US adults aged ≥70 years who completed NHANES audiometry exams were included. Sample weights were applied to provide nationally representative prevalence estimates of hearing loss and hearing assistance device use. Logistic regression analyses assessed associations between SDOH and both hearing loss and hearing assistance device use.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of hearing loss was 73.7%. Among those with nonprofound hearing loss, the prevalence of hearing assistance device use was 31.3%. Older individuals (odds ratio [OR], 6.3 [3.668-10.694] comparing ages 80+ versus 70-74 yr) and with lower education (OR, 3.8 [1.455-9.766] comparing

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of hearing loss among older adults in the United States remains roughly stable compared with previous population-based estimates, whereas the prevalence of hearing assistance device use is slightly increased. Population-level disparities exist both in the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing assistance device use across SDOH.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Samantha Terhaar Department of Otolaryngology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Dhruv Patel Norton College of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Ethan Fung Norton College of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Febronia Mansour Norton College of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Josh F Wallace Department of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
Martin Corsten Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
James Ted McDonald Department of Economics, University of New Brunswick, Frederickton, New Brunswick, Canada
Stephanie Johnson-Obaseki Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Alexandra E Quimby Department of Otolaryngology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York

Collapse

Over-The-Counter Hearing Aids: Are They Safe and Effective?

OBJECTIVE

In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration established a new regulatory category for over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss. Herein, we aim to better compare the safety and efficacy of these devices to that of prescription hearing aids.

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative-effectiveness model.

SETTING

Academic Audiology Center.

METHODS

The safety and efficacy of prescription and OTC hearing aids was compared using the AudioScan Verifit 2 Testbox software. Three types of hearing loss (downsloping, sharp downsloping, and reverse sloping) were analyzed. Efficacy was tested at 3 volume inputs and was measured by calculating the average difference in test points (produced by the devices) and target points (estimated by the software). Safety was assessed by calculating the average difference in test points and the maximally safe hearing level (produced by the software).

RESULTS

Prescription hearing aids were found to have a better safety profile by being further from the safety threshold compared to OTC devices at the 8000 Hz frequency for the 2 types of downsloping hearing loss patterns studied (48 vs 30.5 dB, P = .04; 51 vs 32.5 dB, P = .03). Prescription hearing aids also carried a statistically significant advantage at 3 test points. OTC hearing aids generally had a greater difference between test and target points.

CONCLUSION

OTC and prescription hearing aids are comparably safe, though OTC hearing aids are slightly less efficacious. Further evaluation of the OTC hearing aid efficacy is warranted to ensure it provides the gain of benefit needed for different types of hearing loss.

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use Among Persons Living With Dementia in the US

Importance

Dementia and hearing loss are prevalent and represent public health priorities, but little is known about the prevalence of hearing loss among persons living with dementia at a population level.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use among a nationally representative sample of persons living with dementia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from Medicare beneficiaries who participated in round 11 of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The analytic sample included participants who had complete audiometric data and a dementia classification, and survey weights were applied to yield nationally representative estimates. Data were collected from June to November 2021, and analyzed from October 12, 2023, to February 27, 2024.

Exposures

Audiometric measures of hearing loss and self-reported hearing aid use.

Main Outcomes and Measures

National prevalence estimates of possible and probable dementia and hearing loss were estimated by applying NHATS survey weights of sex and age to the population aged 71 years or older based on the US Census Bureau's 2020 American Community Survey data.

Results

The analytic sample comprised 2613 NHATS participants (74.6% aged 71-79 years and 25.4% aged ≥80 years; 52.9% female). Overall prevalence of hearing loss among participants with dementia was estimated at 79.4% (95% CI, 72.1%-85.3%). The prevalence of hearing loss increased with age, from 61.1% (95% CI, 37.7%-80.2%) among participants aged 71 to 74 years to 94.2% (95% CI, 88.8%-97.0%) among those aged 85 years or older. Among participants with hearing loss, 21.7% (95% CI, 16.2%-28.3%) reported hearing aid use.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, the findings suggest that hearing loss is highly prevalent among individuals with dementia, with a low prevalence of hearing aid use. These findings reveal a potential opportunity for intervention.

[Hearing in the elderly: Employees' perspectives on hearing care in long-term care facilities. A qualitative study]

Hearing in the elderly: Employees' perspectives on hearing care in long-term care facilities. A qualitative study Abstract: Background: Hearing impairment is common among the elderly. More than half of individuals 80 years and older exhibit severe hearing loss, and few retain good hearing performance. This impairment significantly affects both community participation and nursing care. Aim: This study aimed to examine the impact of hearing impairment on everyday life of employees and residents at long-term care facilities. We further sought to identify how employees perceive hearing care in order to identify potential for improvement. Methods: This sub-project of a larger study comprised guided focus groups with employees of long-term care facilities. The sample included six focus groups of nurses and nursing care assistants from long-term care facilities (n = 42). Collected data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Hearing impairment hinders elderly resident participation in the nursing process and complicates daily communication between residents and nursing staff. Hearing impaired residents are less able to take part in group activities and tend to withdraw from the community. Lack of an effective hearing support structure renders hearing care services inaccessible to some residents. Conclusions: Optimized service structures, targeted assistance and training opportunities for employees specific to hearing impairment can provide sustainable hearing care for the elderly.

Hearing loss and cognitive decline: Prioritizing equity in a world in which hearing health matters

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) and age-related hearing loss are the intersection of two major public health challenges. With age as the primary risk factor for both disease processes, the burden of ADRDs and age-related hearing loss is growing, and each field maintains significant barriers to broadscale identification and management that is affordable and accessible. With the disproportionate burden of ADRDs among racial and ethnic minority older adults and existing disparities within hearing care, both areas face challenges in achieving equitable access and outcomes across diverse populations. The publication of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) trial in July 2023 marked a significant moment in the fields of brain and hearing health. The ACHIEVE trial was the first randomized controlled trial to examine whether providing hearing intervention, specifically provision of hearing aids, compared to an education control, would reduce cognitive changes over 3 years. The participants most at risk for cognitive decline, with lower education, lower income, more likely to identify as Black, and have more cardiovascular risk factors, were the participants who benefited most from the hearing intervention and are also the least likely to be represented in research and the least likely to obtain hearing care. With growing evidence of the interconnection between cognitive and sensory health, we have an opportunity to prioritize equity, from purposeful inclusion of diverse participants in trials to influencing the emerging market of over-the-counter hearing aids to supporting expanded models of hearing care that reach those who have traditionally gone unserved. No longer can hearing go unrecognized by clinicians, researchers, and advocates for brain health. At the same time, the fields of brain and hearing health must center equity if we are going to meet the needs of diverse older adults in a world in which hearing health matters.

Longitudinal Policy Surveillance of Private Insurance Hearing Aid Mandates in the United States: 1997-2022

Objectives. To produce a database of private insurance hearing aid mandates in the United States and quantify the share of privately insured individuals covered by a mandate. Methods. We used health-related policy surveillance methods to create a database of private insurance hearing aid mandates through January 2023. We coded salient features of mandates and combined policy data with American Community Survey and Medicare Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component data to estimate the share of privately insured US residents covered by a mandate from 2008 to 2022. Results. A total of 26 states and 1 territory had private insurance hearing aid mandates. We found variability for mandate exceptions, maximum age eligibility, allowable frequency of benefit use, and coverage amounts. Between 2008 and 2022 the proportion of privately insured youths (aged ≤ 18 years) living where there was a private insurance hearing aid mandate increased from 3.4% to 18.7% and the proportion of privately insured adults (19-64 years) increased from 0.3% to 4.6%. Conclusions. Hearing aid mandates cover a small share of US residents. Mandate exceptions in several states limit coverage, particularly for adults. Public Health Implications. A federal mandate would improve hearing aid access. States can also improve access by adopting exception-free mandates with limited utilization management and no age restrictions. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(4):407-414. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307551).

Hearing aid utilization in Ontario - a population based study

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the most common sensory impairments and hearing aids are the most common unmet assistive device need among individuals with a disability. The benefits of hearing interventions are well-documented as they are known to deter the sequalae of hearing loss including social isolation, poor mental health, falls and cognitive decline. Identifying trends in hearing aid users can provide valuable information for improving access to hearing loss interventions.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from ICES databases that were used to generate a cohort of 372,448 individuals in Ontario, Canada, who first claimed hearing aids between April 2007 and March 2018 through the Assistive Devices Program.

RESULTS

The data indicated that the frequency distribution of hearing aids has steadily inclined since 2007. The mean age of hearing aid users was 70.25 ± 14.70 years and higher neighbourhood income quintile was associated with greater hearing aid use (p < 0.001). Most first claims occurred after visiting primary care physicians (70.60%) compared with otolaryngology (13.39%). An examination of clinical comorbidities revealed hypertension (63.41%), and diabetes (24.93%) to be the most common. Regression analysis demonstrated a positive associated between age and most comorbidities. Furthermore, higher neighbourhood income quintiles were associated with a reduced risk of having the examined comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines patient demographics and clinical comorbidities in a cohort of hearing aid users in Ontario. The results identify associations between demographics and comorbidities that provide information relevant for improving access to hearing interventions and clinical decision-making in primary care.Implications for RehabilitationScreening for hearing loss (using an audiogram) in elderly individuals that manage multiple comorbidities, and any patient with significant risk factors for hearing loss (e.g., noise exposure history, prior ototoxic medications, prior head injury, history of ear surgery, family history of hearing loss) will identify deficits and direct appropriate hearing interventions.Improving access to care in low-income communities should include community-based education around expectation management and communication strategies to reinforce proper use and care of hearing devices.Geographic proximity to hearing testing facilities and hearing aid dispensaries is a significant barrier to hearing rehabilitation strategies.

Hearing Loss and Sociodemographic Barriers to Health Care Access Using the All of Us Research Program

OBJECTIVE

To explore how gender and low-income status independently influence general health care access in patients with hearing loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

National database.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss from the National Institutes of Health All of Us database were included. Data entered from May 2018 to November 2022 was analyzed. Patient demographics such as age, gender, educational level, and insurance status were assessed. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

A subset of 8875 patients (48.3% male, mean age 69) were evaluated. After multivariate analysis, female participants were more likely than male participants to report difficulty affording prescribed medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, p < .0005) and specialists (OR: 1.4, p < 0.005). Female patients were also more likely to delay care due to elder care responsibilities (OR: 2.6, p < .0005), employment obligations (OR: 1.7, p < .0005), and feelings of apprehension in seeing a provider (OR: 1.7, p < .0005). Finally, female participants reported feeling less likely to be involved in their own medical care compared to males (OR: 1.2, p < .005). Low-income (<$25,000) participants reported less likely to feel respected (OR: 3.2, p < .0005) and delivered understandable health information (OR: 2.3, p < .0005) by providers compared to participants of higher income.

CONCLUSION

This work suggests that patients with hearing loss, female gender, and lower socioeconomic status independently introduce barriers to health care access and utilization. These factors should be considered in efforts to promote equity in the care of patients with hearing loss.

Recruitment and baseline data of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study: A randomized trial of a hearing loss intervention for reducing cognitive decline

INTRODUCTION

Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best-practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results.

METHODS

Multiple strategies were used to recruit community-dwelling 70-84-year-old participants with adult-onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in-person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility.

RESULTS

Over a 24-month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in-person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site.

DISCUSSION

The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well-established observational study.

Highlights

The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in-person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications.

Examining the Spatial Varying Effects of Sociodemographic Factors on Adult Cochlear Implantation Using Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression

OBJECTIVE

To (i) demonstrate the utility of geographically weighted Poisson regression (GWPR) in describing geographical patterns of adult cochlear implant (CI) incidence in relation to sociodemographic factors in a publicly funded healthcare system, and (ii) compare Poisson regression and GWPR to fit the aforementioned relationship.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study of provincial CI Program database.

SETTING

Academic hospital.

PATIENTS

Adults 18 years or older who received a CI from 2020 to 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Cochlear implant.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

CI incidence based on income level, education attainment, age at implantation, and distance from center, and spatial autocorrelation across census metropolitan areas.

RESULTS

Adult CI incidence varied spatially across Ontario (Moran's I = 0.04, p < 0.05). Poisson regression demonstrated positive associations between implantation and lower income level (coefficient = 0.0284, p < 0.05) and younger age (coefficient = 0.1075, p < 0.01), and a negative association with distance to CI center (coefficient = -0.0060, p < 0.01). Spatial autocorrelation was significant in Poisson model (Moran's I = 0.13, p < 0.05). GWPR accounted for spatial differences (Moran's I = 0.24, p < 0.690), and similar associations to Poisson were observed. GWPR further identified clusters of implantation in South Central census metropolitan areas with higher education attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult CI incidence demonstrated a nonstationary relationship between implantation and the studied sociodemographic factors. GWPR performed better than Poisson regression in accounting for these local spatial variations. These results support the development of targeted interventions to improve access and utilization to CIs in a publicly funded healthcare system.

Comparing Hearing Aid Outcomes in Adults Using Over-the-Counter and Hearing Care Professional Service Delivery Models

PURPOSE

More affordable hearing aids are now available due to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid regulations. Although laboratory studies have validated many OTC hearing technologies, there are limited real-world benefit studies. This study compared hearing aid outcomes reported by clients from OTC and conventional hearing care professional (HCP) service delivery models.

METHOD

An ecological, cross-sectional survey design was employed. An online survey was sent to the Hearing Tracker user and OTC Lexie hearing aid user databases. Moreover, 656 hearing aid users completed the survey-406 through conventional HCP services (M _age = 66.7 ± 13.0 years) and 250 through the OTC model (M _age = 63.7 ± 12.2 years). Self-reported hearing aid benefit and satisfaction were measured with the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids outcome tool.

RESULTS

No significant difference for overall hearing aid outcomes between HCP and OTC users was evident using regression analyses, controlling for age, gender, duration of hearing loss, duration before hearing aid purchase, self-reported hearing difficulty, and unilateral versus bilateral fitting. For the "daily use" domain, HCP clients reported significantly longer hours of daily use. For the "residual activity limitations" domain, OTC hearing aid users reported significantly less difficulty hearing in situations where they most wanted to hear better.

CONCLUSIONS

OTC hearing aid outcomes could complement and provide similar satisfaction and benefit to HCP models for adults. Service delivery aspects such as self-fitting, acclimatization programs, remote support, behavioral incentivization, and payment options should be investigated for their potential role in OTC hearing aid outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22134788.

Community Health Workers as Patient-Site Facilitators in Adult Hearing Aid Services via Synchronous Teleaudiology: Feasibility Results from the Conexiones Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of Community Health Workers (CHWs) as patient-site facilitators in teleaudiology-facilitated hearing aid services to improve hearing aid rehabilitation outcomes for older Hispanic/Latino adults in a medically underserved, rural, US-Mexico border community.

DESIGN

A total of 28 adults (aged 55 to 89) with bilateral hearing loss participated in this study. Individuals were randomized to one of two teleaudiology intervention arms that differed at the level of the patient-site facilitator. Participants in the experimental group were assisted locally by trained CHW facilitators. Participants in the control group were assisted locally by trained university student facilitators. Synchronous (real-time) teleaudiology hearing aid services took place with participants located at a rural community health center and the clinician located a university 70 miles away. The results of this feasibility study are presented within the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation fidelity, and maintenance implementation framework.

RESULTS

Regarding reach, the participants in this study population are historically under-represented in research (primarily low-income Hispanic/Latino older adults). A total of 57 individuals were recruited, 47 were consented and assessed for eligibility and 28 individuals met inclusion criteria and were randomized. The average age of participants was 73.9 years, (range: 55 to 89 years) and most individuals were female (75%). Most participants (86%) reported having incomes less than $20,000 annually. Effectiveness results (via the Self Efficacy for Situational Communication Management Questionnaire) showed that both groups (CHW and control) significantly improved listening self-efficacy from pre-fitting baseline and no difference between groups was observed. Regarding datalogging, at the short-term follow-up, participants in the CHW group wore their hearing aids for more hours/day on average compared with participants in the control group. Implementation fidelity was high for both groups. Long-term maintenance of CHW-supported teleaudiology appears feasible given that training and institutional support is in place.

CONCLUSIONS

Teleaudiology-delivered hearing aid services were feasible when facilitated locally by trained CHWs. Future efficacy and effectiveness research is warranted with CHWs and teleaudiology, potentially leading to a significant reduction in barriers for rural and medically under-resourced communities.

Inclusion of hearing and vision impairments in cognitive training interventions

Introduction

Cognitive training can potentially reduce risk of cognitive decline and dementia in older adults. To support implementation of cognitive training in the broader population of older adults, it is critical to evaluate intervention implementation and efficacy among representative samples, particularly those at highest risk of cognitive decline. Hearing and vision impairments are highly prevalent among older adults and confer increased risk of cognitive decline/dementia. Whether cognitive training interventions enroll and are designed to include this important subgroup is unknown.

Methods

A scoping review of PubMed and PsycINFO was conducted to examine the inclusion of older adults with hearing and vision impairment in cognitive training interventions. Two independent reviewers completed a full-text review of eligible articles. Eligible articles included cognitive training and multimodal randomized controlled trials and a study population that was cognitively unimpaired, aged ≥55-years, and community dwelling. Articles were primary outcome papers published in English.

Results

Among the 130 articles included in the review, 103 were cognitive training interventions (79%) and 27 were multimodal interventions (21%). More than half the trials systematically excluded participants with hearing and/or vision impairment (n = 60, 58%). Few studies reported hearing and vision measurement (cognitive: n = 16, 16%; multimodal: n = 3, 11%) or incorporated universal design and accessibility into intervention design (cognitive: n = 7, 7%; multimodal: n = 0, 0%).

Discussion

Older adults with hearing and vision impairment are underrepresented in cognitive training interventions. Reporting of hearing and vision measurement, proper justification of exclusions, and inclusion of accessibility and universal intervention design are also lacking. These findings raise concerns about whether current trial findings apply to those with hearing and vision impairment and generalize to the broader population of older adults. It is critical to include more diverse study populations and integrate accessibility into intervention design to include and better represent older adults with hearing and vision impairment.

Highlights

Cognitive training interventions underrepresent hearing and vision impairment.Sensory measurement and proper justification of exclusions are rarely reported.Interventions lack inclusion of accessibility and universal intervention design.More diverse study populations are needed in cognitive training interventions.Integration of accessibility into cognitive training intervention design is needed.

Socioeconomic position and hearing loss: current understanding and recent advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe recent literature examining the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing loss, including the impact of hearing loss on several socioeconomic outcomes over the life course. Additionally, we highlight current policy advances in recent years and review alternative models of hearing care that aim to address disparities related to SEP and hearing healthcare.

RECENT FINDINGS

Applying a social epidemiologic lens to hearing health gives insight into the role of material and social contexts in understanding and improving hearing health outcomes. Recent studies investigating the intersection of SEP and hearing health highlight the disparities that exist for individuals with low SEP as well as the influence of hearing loss on SEP. Individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be unemployed, have lower educational attainment, lower income, and are less likely to use hearing aids and access hearing care. Legislation addressing cost and access to hearing care as well as transforming the current landscape of hearing care, is essential to creating equitable care for individuals, especially older adults, with low SEP.

SUMMARY

With the expected rise in prevalence of hearing loss over the next 40 years, hearing care that is affordable and accessible is a public health priority. As hearing loss is associated with negative outcomes for individuals with low SEP, advances in legislation and care delivery models are necessary in order to include populations traditionally unserved by current hearing healthcare.

Foundational Approaches to Advancing Hearing Health Equity: A Primer in Social Epidemiology

Hearing health is inextricably linked to factors beyond biology. Social, demographic, environmental, geographic, and historical influences affect hearing health, but these factors are often unmeasured within traditional biological, clinical, and epidemiological studies of hearing health. With increasing recognition of hearing health over the life course as a public health priority, there is also a growing understanding of existing hearing health inequities at the individual, community, national, and global levels. To make progress in addressing these inequities, public health disciplines, such as social epidemiology, can provide valuable frameworks. With a focus on integrating the biological and functional with social and structural factors influencing health, social epidemiology provides key concepts and approaches for filling existing research and practice gaps. In this review, we introduce the discipline of social epidemiology and its associated concepts to inspire greater cross-disciplinary collaboration for the ultimate goal of advancing hearing health equity.

Expanding Clinical Trials Designs to Extend Equitable Hearing Care

Clinical trials are critically important to translate scientific innovations into clinical practice. Hearing healthcare depends on this translational approach to improve outcomes and quality of life. Across the spectrum of healthcare, there is a lack of diverse participation in clinical trials, a failure to recruit and retain underrepresented and underserved populations, and an absence of rigorous dissemination and implementation of novel research to broader populations. The field of hearing healthcare research would benefit from expanding the types and designs of clinical trials that extend hearing healthcare and novel interventions to diverse populations, as well as emphasizing trials that evaluate factors influencing how that care can be delivered effectively. This article explores the following: (1) the role, value, and design types of clinical trials (randomized controlled, cluster randomized, stepped wedge, and mixed methods) to address health equity; (2) the importance of integrating community and stakeholder involvement; and (3) dissemination and implementation frameworks and designs for clinical trials (hybrid trial designs). By adopting a broader range of clinical trial designs, hearing healthcare researchers may be able to extend scientific discoveries to a more diverse population.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

OBJECTIVES

We examined individual-level factors associated with hearing aid use by race and ethnicity in a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (cycles 2016-2018) for 10,301 older adults with hearing loss and hearing aid use as the primary outcome. Covariates included education, income, urban residence, chronic conditions, functional limitations, and Medicaid eligibility. Multivariable logistic regression stratified by race and ethnicity was used to identify factors associated with hearing aid use.

RESULTS

Factors associated with hearing aid use included higher education among White (OR = 1.35, 95%CI:1.16, 1.58), Black (OR = 1.76, 95%CI:1.02, 3.05), and Hispanic (OR = 1.77, 95%CI:1.17, 2.68) beneficiaries. Urban residence was associated with hearing aid use for Black participants (OR = 3.06, 95%CI:1.17, 8.03) and Medicaid eligibility for Hispanic participants (OR = 1.58, 95%CI:0.97, 2.59), although the confidence interval included the null hypothesis.

DISCUSSION

ndividual-level factors associated with hearing aid use differed by race and ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries.

Individual Life-Course Socioeconomic Position and Hearing Aid Use in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

BACKGROUND

To measure the association between individual life-course socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing aid use, we examined childhood and adulthood socioeconomic variables collected at the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study baseline visit (1987-1989)/Life Course Socioeconomic Status study (2001-2002) and hearing aid use data collected at visit 6 (2016-2017).

METHODS

ARIC is a prospective cohort study of older adults (45-64 years) recruited from 4 U.S. communities. This analysis included a subset of 2 470 participants with hearing loss at visit 6 (≥25 decibels hearing level [dB HL] better-ear) with complete hearing aid use data. Childhood SEP variables included parental education, parental occupation, and parental home ownership. Young and older adulthood SEP variables included income, education, occupation, and home ownership. Each life epoch was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 5 and then summed to calculate the individual cumulative SEP score. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the association between individual cumulative SEP and hearing aid use. Missing SEP scores were imputed for participants with incomplete socioeconomic data.

RESULTS

Of the 2 470 participants in the analytic cohort (median [interquartile interval] age 79.9 [76.7-84.0], 1 330 [53.8%] women, 450 [18.2%] Black), 685 (27.7%) participants reported hearing aid use. Higher cumulative SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.14), and slightly stronger for childhood (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20) than older adulthood SEP score (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95-1.18).

CONCLUSIONS

In this community-based cohort of older adults with hearing loss, higher individual life-course SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use.

Childhood hearing impairment and fertility in Norway

There is a lack of studies assessing how hearing impairment relates to reproductive outcomes. We examined whether childhood hearing impairment (HI) affects reproductive patterns based on longitudinal Norwegian population level data for birth cohorts 1940-1980. We used Poisson regression to estimate the association between the number of children ever born and HI. The association with childlessness is estimated by a logit model. As a robustness check, we also estimated family fixed effects Poisson and logit models. Hearing was assessed at ages 7, 10 and 13, and reproduction was observed at adult ages until 2014. Air conduction hearing threshold levels were obtained by pure-tone audiometry at eight frequencies from 0.25 to 8 kHz. Fertility data were collected from Norwegian administrative registers. The combined dataset size was N = 50,022. Our analyses reveal that HI in childhood is associated with lower fertility in adulthood, especially for men. The proportion of childless individuals among those with childhood HI was almost twice as large as that of individuals with normal childhood hearing (20.8% vs. 10.7%). The negative association is robust to the inclusion of family fixed effects in the model that allow to control for the unobserved heterogeneity that are shared between siblings, including factors related to the upbringing and parent characteristics. Less family support in later life could add to the health challenges faced by those with HI. More attention should be given to how fertility relates to HI.

Promising Applications of Nanoparticles in the Treatment of Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is one of the most common disabilities affecting both children and adults worldwide. However, traditional treatment of hearing loss has some limitations, particularly in terms of drug delivery system as well as diagnosis of ear imaging. The blood–labyrinth barrier (BLB), the barrier between the vasculature and fluids of the inner ear, restricts entry of most blood-borne compounds into inner ear tissues. Nanoparticles (NPs) have been demonstrated to have high biocompatibility, good degradation, and simple synthesis in the process of diagnosis and treatment, which are promising for medical applications in hearing loss. Although previous studies have shown that NPs have promising applications in the field of inner ear diseases, there is still a gap between biological research and clinical application. In this paper, we aim to summarize developments and challenges of NPs in diagnostics and treatment of hearing loss in recent years. This review may be useful to raise otology researchers’ awareness of effect of NPs on hearing diagnosis and treatment.

A Review of Adult-Onset Hearing Loss: A Primer for Neurologists

Purpose of the Review

The goal of this review is to highlight current approaches to diagnosis and treatment for adult-onset hearing loss in patients likely to present to a neurologist's office. The review will discuss primary and secondary causes of acute and chronic hearing loss, and will discuss common situations that can be managed by a neurologist as well as situations that require immediate care and referral for further management by an otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon.

Recent Findings

Hearing screening assessments using mobile applications and tablet devices are now available and can be integrated into many clinical practice settings, including in the evaluation of hearing concerns related to various neurological pathologies. For patients presenting with a sudden worsening in hearing, bedside evaluation, including with objective measures of hearing, can inform neurologists about diagnosis and subsequent management. For patients who present with gradual worsening in hearing, particularly those related to neurologic disorders, hearing care can be an important adjunct to ongoing neurologic care. More commonly encountered, age-related hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and may affect overall neurological assessment, including neurocognitive testing, as well as patient-provider communication, patient satisfaction, and care outcomes. Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia. Neurologists can support the hearing health of their patients through the routine use of communication strategies and by integrating simple, low-cost technology with their current clinical practices.

Summary

Both acute and chronic hearing loss can be a symptom of many conditions managed by neurologists. Few conditions are emergent, requiring immediate referral to and treatment by an otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon. Despite the range of hearing interventions available, including hearing aids, over-the-counter devices, and aural rehabilitation, hearing loss is a common and under-treated chronic health condition. By promptly addressing a patient's hearing concerns, neurologists can improve patients' awareness of the deficit and support the overall importance of maintaining sensory health across the life course.

What Influences Decision-Making for Cochlear Implantation in Adults? Exploring Barriers and Drivers From a Multistakeholder Perspective

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors influencing the uptake of cochlear implants in adults, determine the impact of each factor, and to conceptualize the journey to implantation from a multistakeholder perspective.

DESIGN

Concept mapping was used to integrate input from multiple stakeholders, each with their own experience and expertise. This mixed participatory method collects qualitative and quantitative data collection and enables further quantitative analysis. There were two participant cohorts: clients (cochlear implant recipients, candidates, and family members) and professionals (cochlear implant audiologists, ear, nose, and throat surgeons, administration staff, managers. and manufacturer representatives). A total of 93 people participated in the study: client cohort (n = 60, M age = 66.60 years) and professional cohort (n = 33, M age = 45.24 years). Participants brainstormed statements in response to the question "What influences people's decision to get/not get a cochlear implant?" They subsequently grouped the statements and named each group. They rated each statement as to its impact on the decision and prioritized the need for each to be changed/improved using a five-point Likert scale. Multidimensional scaling was used to produce a visual representation of the ideas and their relationship in the form of concepts. Further analysis was conducted to determine the differences between the cohorts, subcohorts, and concepts.

RESULTS

One hundred ten unique statements were generated and grouped into six concepts which either directly affected the client or their environment. These concepts were: external influences (awareness and attitude of non-implant professionals about uptake, cost, logistics, the referral pathway, public awareness); uncertainties, beliefs, and fears (fears, negative effect of word of mouth, unsuccessful previous ear surgery, cosmetics of the device, misunderstanding of how a cochlear implant functions, eligibility for an implant and outcomes after implantation); health problems (mental and physical health); hearing difficulties (social, emotional, and communication impacts of hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, benefit from and experience with hearing aids); implant professionals (implant team's attitude, knowledge and relationship with clients, quality of overall service); and goals and support (clients 'hearing desires and goals, motivation, positive impact of word of mouth, family support, having a cochlear implant mentor. The six concepts fell into two overarching domains: the client-driven domain with four concepts and the external domain with two concepts. The mean rating of concepts in terms of impact on a client's decision to get an implant ranged from 2.24 (external influences, the main barrier) to 4.45 (goals and support, the main driver). Ratings significantly differed between the client and professional cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study increases our understanding of the factors, which influence a client's decision choose a cochlear implant as a hearing treatment. It also provides new information on the influence of the other stakeholders on the client journey. The magnitude of the generated statements in the client-driven domain highlights the pivotal role of individualized care in clinical settings in influencing a client's decision and the need for the professionals to understand a client's needs and expectations. A client's persistent hearing difficulties, goals, and support network were identified as drivers to the uptake of cochlear implants. However, the barriers identified highlight the need for a collaborative multi- and interdisciplinary approach to raise awareness in and educate non-implant hearing professionals about the cochlear implant process, as well as providing information to empower clients to make educated decisions and consider a cochlear implant as a hearing management option.

Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is highly prevalent and may significantly affect how we age. Although the population is aging, relatively few adults receive treatment for hearing loss. Internists are a critical partner to audiologists and otolaryngologists in caring for the adult population with hearing loss. This review provides a primer on diagnosing and managing hearing loss.

Association of Hearing Loss With Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in persons with dementia (PWD) are common and can lead to poor outcomes, such as institutionalization and mortality, and may be exacerbated by sensory loss. Hearing loss is also highly prevalent among older adults, including PWD.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the association between hearing loss and NPS among community- dwelling patients from a tertiary memory care center.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants of this cross-sectional study were patients followed at the Johns Hopkins Memory and Alzheimer's Treatment Center who underwent audiometric testing during routine clinical practice between October 2014 and January 2017.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Included measures were scores on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 101) were on average 76 years old, mostly female and white, and had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination score of 23. We observed a positive association between audiometric hearing loss and the number of NPS (b = 0.7 per 10 dB; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2, 1.1; t = 2.86; p = 0.01; df = 85), NPS severity (b = 1.3 per 10 dB; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.5; t = 2.13; p = 0.04; df = 80), and depressive symptom severity (b = 1.5 per 10 dB; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.5; t = 2.83; p = 0.01; df = 89) after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Additionally, the use of hearing aids was inversely associated with the number of NPS (b = -2.09; 95% CI -3.44, -0.75; t = -3.10; p = 0.003; df = 85), NPS severity (b = -3.82; 95% CI -7.19, -0.45; t = -2.26; p = 0.03; df = 80), and depressive symptom severity (b = -2.94; 95% CI: -5.93, 0.06; t = 1.70; p = 0.05; df = 89).

CONCLUSION

Among patients at a memory clinic, increasing severity of hearing loss was associated with a greater number of NPS, more severe NPS, and more severe depressive symptoms, while hearing aid use was associated with fewer NPS, lower severity, and less severe depressive symptoms. Identifying and addressing hearing loss may be a promising, low-risk, non-pharmacological intervention in preventing and treating NPS.

The Role of Patient-Site Facilitators in Teleaudiology: A Scoping Review

Purpose Teleaudiology helps improve access to hearing health care by overcoming the geographic gap between providers and patients. In many teleaudiology encounters, a facilitator is needed at the patient site to help with hands-on aspects of procedures. The aim of this study was to review the scope and nature of research around patient-site facilitators in teleaudiology. We focused on identifying the facilitators' background, training, and responsibilities. Method To conduct this scoping review, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. To be included, studies needed to address teleaudiology; be experimental/quasi-experimental, correlational/predictive, or descriptive; be published in English; and include the use of a facilitator at the patient location. Results A total of 82 studies met the inclusion criteria. The available literature described a number of different individuals in the role of the patient-site facilitator, including audiologists, students, and local aides. Fifty-seven unique tasks were identified, including orienting the client to the space, assisting with technology, and assisting with audiology procedures. The largest number of studies (n = 42) did not describe the facilitators' training. When reported, the facilitators' training was heterogenous in terms of who delivered the training, the length of the training, and the training content. Conclusions Across studies, the range of duties performed by patient-site facilitators indicates they may have an important role in teleaudiology. However, details are still needed surrounding their background, responsibilities, and training. Future research is warranted exploring the role of the patient-site facilitator, including their impact on teleaudiology service delivery. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12475796.

Mortality and Cause of Death in Hearing Loss Participants: A Longitudinal Follow-up Study Using a National Sample Cohort

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to estimate the risk of mortality in hearing loss subjects in accordance with the cause of death.

STUDY DESIGN

A longitudinal follow up study.

SETTING

Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort were collected from a period between 2002 and 2013.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

The 4,606 severe and 1,007 profound hearing loss participants with 40 or more years old were 1:4 matched with control participants, respectively, for age, sex, income, and region of residence. The causes of death were grouped into 12 classifications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The ratio of mortality was compared between the hearing loss and control group using a χ test or Fisher's exact test. In a Cox-proportional hazard model, age, sex, income, region of residence, and past medical histories were considered confounders.

RESULTS

The severe and profound hearing loss groups showed 4.07 (95% CI = 3.71-4.46, p < 0.001) and 4.22 times (95% CI = 3.52-5.05, p < 0.001) higher mortality ratios in the adjusted models, respectively. Both the severe and profound hearing loss groups showed higher mortality by infection, neoplasm, trauma, and metabolic, mental, circulatory, respiratory, and digestive diseases than control groups (p < 0.05). Among various causes of death, death by trauma revealed the highest odds ratios in both the severe and profound hearing loss groups.

CONCLUSION

Hearing loss was associated with a significant increase in mortality.

Correlates of Hearing Aid Use in UK Adults: Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties, Social Participation, Living Situation, Health, and Demographics

OBJECTIVES

Hearing impairment is ranked fifth globally for years lived with disability, yet hearing aid use is low among individuals with a hearing impairment. Identifying correlates of hearing aid use would be helpful in developing interventions to promote use. To date, however, no studies have investigated a wide range of variables, this has limited intervention development. The aim of the present study was to identify correlates of hearing aid use in adults in the United Kingdom with a hearing impairment. To address limitations in previous studies, we used a cross-sectional analysis to model a wide range of potential correlates simultaneously to provide better evidence to aid intervention development.

DESIGN

The research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource. A cross-sectional analysis of hearing aid use was conducted on 18,730 participants aged 40 to 69 years old with poor hearing, based on performance on the Digit Triplet test.

RESULTS

Nine percent of adults with poor hearing in the cross-sectional sample reported using a hearing aid. The strongest correlate of hearing aid use was self-reported hearing difficulties (odds ratio [OR] = 110.69 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 65.12 to 188.16]). Individuals who were older were more likely to use a hearing aid: for each additional year of age, individuals were 5% more likely to use a hearing aid (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.06). People with tinnitus (OR = 1.43 [95% CI = 1.26 to 1.63]) and people with a chronic illness (OR = 1.97 [95% CI = 1.71 to 2.28]) were more likely to use a hearing aid. Those who reported an ethnic minority background (OR = 0.53 [95% CI = 0.39 to 0.72]) and those who lived alone (OR = 0.80 [95% CI = 0.68 to 0.94]) were less likely to use a hearing aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to promote hearing aid use need to focus on addressing reasons for the perception of hearing difficulties and how to promote hearing aid use. Interventions to promote hearing aid use may need to target demographic groups that are particularly unlikely to use hearing aids, including younger adults, those who live alone and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors associated with hearing loss in older adults: a cross-sectional study of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA)

OBJECTIVES

Aims were (1) to examine whether socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with hearing loss (HL) among older adults in England and (2) whether major modifiable lifestyle factors (high body mass index, physical inactivity, tobacco consumption and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines) are associated with HL after controlling for non-modifiable demographic factors and SEP.

SETTING

We used data from the wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which is a longitudinal household survey dataset of a representative sample of people aged 50 and older.

PARTICIPANTS

The final analytical sample was 8529 participants aged 50-89 that gave consent to have their hearing acuity objectively measured by a screening audiometry device and did not have any ear infection.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

HL defined as >35 dBHL at 3.0 kHz (better-hearing ear). Those with HL were further subdivided into two categories depending on the number of tones heard at 3.0 kHz.

RESULTS

HL was identified in 32.1% of men and 22.3% of women aged 50-89. Those in a lower SEP were up to two times more likely to have HL; the adjusted odds of HL were higher for those with no qualifications versus those with a degree/higher education (men: OR 1.87, 95%CI 1.47 to 2.38, women: OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.95), those in routine/manual occupations versus those in managerial/professional occupations (men: OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.43 to 2.63, women: OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.54), and those in the lowest versus the highest income and wealth quintiles (men: OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.44, women: OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.85 to 2.16, and men: OR1.72, 95%CI 1.26 to 2.35, women: OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.58, respectively). All regression models showed that socioeconomic and the modifiable lifestyle factors were strongly associated with HL after controlling for age and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors are associated with HL among older adults as strongly as core demographic risk factors, such as age and gender. Socioeconomic inequalities and modifiable lifestyle behaviours need to be targeted by the health policy strategies, as an important step in designing interventions for individuals that face hearing health inequalities.

Cultural Adaptation of a Community-Based Hearing Health Intervention for Korean American Older Adults with Hearing Loss

Although hearing loss is known to be associated with many adverse health outcomes in older adults, current hearing healthcare remains expensive and inaccessible to most ethnic minorities in the US. We aim to adapt an affordable, community-based hearing intervention to older Korean Americans (KAs), describe the cultural adaption process, and report pilot trial outcomes. We undertook the first four stages of Barrera & Castro's cultural adaptation framework: information gathering, preliminary adaptation design, adaptation test, and adaptation refinement in 15 older KAs with hearing loss and 15 of their communication partners. We developed a culturally adapted intervention consisting of provision of an affordable listening device and aural rehabilitative training. Six weeks post-intervention, participants' mean hearing handicap score (range: 0-40) reduced from 15.7 to 6.4. Communication partners demonstrated improved social-emotional function. Post-intervention focus group revealed increased hearing benefit, confidence in hearing health navigation, and awareness in hearing health among study participants. The adapted intervention was well-accepted and feasible among older KAs. This study is the first to report the cultural adaptation process of a hearing care model into older KAs and its methodology may be applied to other minority groups.

Characteristics and Health Outcomes Associated With Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use Among Older Adults

Background: This study recruited older adults to explore physical and psychosocial conditions and other health outcomes associated with hearing loss (HL) and hearing aid use. Method: Survey data were used to categorize 20,244 participants into five groups: no HL, unaided mild HL, aided mild HL, unaided severe HL, and aided severe HL. Results: Individuals with unaided severe HL were more likely to report poor-fair self-rated health and were less likely to leave the home, or exercise 4 to 7 days per week, while there were no such associations for those with aided mild or severe HL. In addition, those with aided hearing were less likely to report depression, low social support, or mobility limitations. Discussion: In several instances, hearing aid use reduced associations between HL and negative psychosocial and physical characteristics, and health outcomes. More research using longitudinal study designs is needed to better understand the true implications of these findings.

What Keeps Older Adults With Hearing Impairment From Adopting Hearing Aids?

The aim of this study was to compare elderly individuals who are hearing impaired but inexperienced in using hearing aids (hearing aid non-users; HA-NU) with their aided counterparts (hearing aid users; HA-U) across various auditory and non-auditory measures in order to identify differences that might be associated with the low hearing aid uptake rate. We have drawn data of 72 HA-NU and 139 HA-U with a mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and matched these two groups on the degree of hearing impairment, age, and sex. First, HA-NU and HA-U were compared across 65 auditory, cognitive, health-specific, and socioeconomic test measures as well as measures assessing technology commitment. Second, a logistic regression approach was performed to identify relevant predictors for using hearing aids. Finally, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the matching approach. Group comparisons indicated that HA-NU perceive their hearing problem as less severe than their aided counterparts. Furthermore, HA-NU showed worse technology commitment and lower socioeconomic status than HA-U. The logistic regression revealed self-reported hearing performance, technology commitment, and the socioeconomic and health status as the most important predictors for using hearing aids.

Hearing Loss: Effect on Hospice and Palliative Care Through the Eyes of Practitioners

CONTEXT

Discussions regarding values and goals of care are central to providing quality palliative care. An inability to hear during these sensitive discussions may significantly impair the quality of care provided, yet hearing loss (HL) is not formally addressed in these settings or in programs designed to assist practitioners gain advanced communication skills.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an understanding of hospice and palliative care practitioners' experiences with HL and its impact on the care provided.

METHOD

SurveyMonkey questionnaire eliciting whether and how HL impacted care provided with an open-ended question asking for descriptions of a situation where HL created a problem in communication with an older patient. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative techniques.

RESULTS

Of 510 respondents, 464 (91%) reported HL had some or great impact on the quality of care provided, 449 (88%) noted encountering a situation where HL impaired communication with an older adult, and 99 of these participants (22%) provided a specific example. The overarching theme was "Diagnostic and Treatment Uncertainty." Nonmutually exclusive categories underpinning this theme included the following: unable to get needed information, misinterpreting level of understanding, patient misunderstanding of instructions, and goals-of-care errors.

CONCLUSION

HL impacts the quality of care provided to persons with serious illness by disrupting the identification, assessment, and treatment of the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual symptoms an individual is experiencing. HL should be formally addressed in programs designed to develop skills in conducting sensitive conversations. Practitioners should screen for HL, use practices that facilitate comprehension, and use assistive listening devices as needed.

Translating Public Health Practices: Community-Based Approaches for Addressing Hearing Health Care Disparities

Epidemiologic studies reveal disparities in hearing health care with lower prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults from racial/ethnic minority groups and lower socioeconomic positions. Recent national reports recommend exploring innovative delivery models to increase the accessibility and affordability of hearing health care, particularly for underserved and vulnerable populations. With an expected rise in the prevalence of age-related hearing loss over the next four decades due to a rapidly aging population, the condition is a growing public health imperative. This review describes key public health practices for developing and delivering community-based care that characterizes an emerging area of research in novel approaches of hearing loss management programs to reach underserved populations. With evolving technologies that enable care to extend beyond the clinic, adapting a long-utilized community health worker approach presents a strategy for the field of hearing health care to be actively involved in designing and leading initiatives for achieving hearing health equity. Principles from community-based participatory research offer a paradigm for the field to integrate into its research endeavors for addressing disparities. An interdisciplinary approach for engaging these challenges offers hearing health care researchers and providers an opportunity to advance the field and delivery of care.

Otolaryngology for the Internist: Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is the third most common chronic condition but can be secondary to a range of conditions encountered in primary care. This article reviews the presentation, evaluation, differential diagnosis, and associated treatments for both acute and chronic causes of hearing loss. As the most common cause of hearing loss, this article provides an overview of age-related hearing loss, its consequences, and pragmatic treatment approaches, including over-the-counter hearing technology.

Prevalence of severe-profound hearing loss in South Korea: a nationwide population-based study to analyse a 10-year trend (2006-2015)

To estimate prevalence of severe-profound hearing loss (HL) in South Korea, and analyse a 10-year trend of HL according to age, sex, and region by using a nationwide population-based database. Retrospective review from Korean National Health Insurance Service from 2006 to 2015. The degree of severe-profound HL was classified into six grades, based mostly on HL worse than 60 dB HL for both ears. Absolute number of HL was the highest in 2011 (0.25 million; males, 0.14 million; females, 0.11 million); it decreased gradually until 2015. Total HL prevalence was the highest in 2010 (0.5%; 251,954), and decreased annually to 2015 (0.46%; 237,272). The trend of HL prevalence showed a gradual decrease from 2010 to 2015. Prevalence of severe-profound HL was always higher in the male population (1.19 times higher than female in 2015). Prevalence of HL was higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.4 times higher in 2015). Number of severe-profound HL in South Korea decreased gradually in all age groups annually, even though some older age groups had the highest peak in 2010–2011. Prevalence of severe-profound HL decreases gradually in all age groups annually in South Korea, although the absolute number of HL cases increases rapidly among those aged over 80 years.

Disruptive Hearing Technologies and Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss II: Current Research on Affordable Hearing Technologies and Direct-to-Consumer Models

Recently, President Trump signed into law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Reauthorization Act of 2017, which included the Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act designed to provide greater public accessibility to and affordability of amplification for individuals with self-identified mild and moderate hearing loss through the provision of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids (HAs) with a direct-to-consumer (DTC) delivery model. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and American Academy of Audiology Position Statements on OTC HAs state that these devices should only be used for adults with mild hearing losses. DTC amplification and service delivery has been available to consumers in a variety of forms for a significant period of time. However, FDA-regulated OTC HAs will not be available as described in the new law until the FDA publishes the required guidance related to the technology, safety, and labeling of such devices. With the clear similarities in mind between present and future amplification options, a literature search was conducted to review studies assessing outcomes for low-cost and DTC HAs and service-delivery models to inform what we may expect as OTC HAs enter the market. Nine studies were identified which assessed: (1) electroacoustic capabilities of low-cost and DTC HAs, (2) use of these devices in field trials, or (3) efficacy of DTC models. None of the studies reported outcomes specifically for participants with mild hearing loss. The studies had poor external validity because none included all factors that would exist in realistic uses of OTC HAs within a DTC model. Additional research will be needed as OTC HAs become available and different delivery models are proposed.

Socioeconomic differences in hearing among middle-aged and older adults: cross-sectional analyses using the Health Survey for England

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss impacts on cognitive, social and physical functioning. Both hearing loss and hearing aid use vary across population subgroups. We examined whether hearing loss, and reported current hearing aid use among persons with hearing loss, were associated with different markers of socioeconomic status (SES) in a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.

METHODS

Hearing was measured using an audiometric screening device in the Health Survey for England 2014 (3292 participants aged 45 years and over). Hearing loss was defined as >35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz in the better-hearing ear. Using sex-specific logistic regression modelling, we evaluated the associations between SES and hearing after adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

26% of men and 20% of women aged 45 years and over had hearing loss. Hearing loss was higher among men in the lowest SES groups. For example, the multivariable-adjusted odds of hearing loss were almost two times as high for those in the lowest versus the highest income tertile (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.74). Among those with hearing loss, 30% of men and 27% of women were currently using a hearing aid. Compared with men in the highest income tertile, the multivariable-adjusted odds of using a hearing aid nowadays were lower for men in the middle (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99) and the lowest (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97) income tertiles. Associations between SES and hearing were weaker or null among women.

CONCLUSIONS

While the burden of hearing loss fell highest among men in the lowest SES groups, current hearing aid use was demonstrably lower. Initiatives to detect hearing loss early and increase the uptake and the use of hearing aids may provide substantial public health benefits and reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health.

Increasing access to hearing rehabilitation for older adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on the recent research and policy developments affecting the current and future care of the 23 million older Americans with untreated hearing loss.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence supports the association of age-related hearing loss with significant negative outcomes that affect the ability of older adults to age well. Despite an evolving understanding of the role hearing loss plays in the well being and vitality of older adults, the vast majority of older adults go untreated and hearing health care disparities exist. Recent work to understand the multitude of factors involved in hearing health care decisions, coupled with innovative approaches and technology to deliver hearing care, aim to provide more older adults with equal access to the tools needed to age well. Most importantly, significant national efforts and policy proposals substantiate these efforts and will be reviewed.

SUMMARY

Age-related hearing loss is a critical public health issue that affects almost all older adults. Through the application of novel approaches and perspectives, the delivery of hearing health care for older adults is evolving to provide more affordable and accessible care. Accompanying policy efforts provide the necessary support needed to increase access to care significantly.

Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review

Background

This systematic literature review is aimed at investigating applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss. This review discusses three categories of direct-to-consumer hearing devices: 1) personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), 2) direct-mail hearing aids, and 3) over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids.

Method

A literature review was conducted using EBSCOhost and included the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. After applying prior agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 reports were included in the review.

Results

Included studies fell into three domains: 1) electroacoustic characteristics, 2) consumer surveys, and 3) outcome evaluations. Electroacoustic characteristics of these devices vary significantly with some meeting the stringent acoustic criteria used for hearing aids, while others producing dangerous output levels (ie, over 120-dB sound pressure level). Low-end (or low-cost) devices were typically poor in acoustic quality and did not meet gain levels necessary for most adult and elderly hearing loss patterns (eg, presbycusis), especially in high frequencies. Despite direct-mail hearing aids and PSAPs being associated with lower satisfaction when compared to hearing aids purchased through hearing health care professionals, consumer surveys suggest that 5%–19% of people with hearing loss purchase hearing aids through direct-mail or online. Studies on outcome evaluation suggest positive outcomes of OTC devices in the elderly population. Of note, OTC outcomes appear better when a hearing health care professional supports these users.

Conclusion

While some direct-to-consumer hearing devices have the capability to produce adverse effects due to production of dangerously high sound levels and internal noise, the existing literature suggests that there are potential benefits of these devices. Research of direct-to-consumer hearing devices is limited, and current published studies are of weak quality. Much effort is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of such devices on people with hearing loss.

Interventional Audiology to Address Hearing Health Care Disparities: Oyendo Bien Pilot Study

Interventional audiology, specifically community-based outreach, can connect people with the hearing health care system. Community-based participatory research methods were applied in two phases of research to: (1) investigate the needs of families affected by hearing loss in a rural Arizona community on the U.S.-Mexico border; and (2) evaluate an outreach program on hearing health. The needs assessment included interviews with persons with hearing loss and focus groups with family members and the greater community. The needs assessment revealed that despite perceived severity of hearing loss, help-seeking for audiologic care was limited due to barriers, stigma, and low self-efficacy. Results informed development of a community-based pilot study conducted as part of an academic-community partnership between audiology, public health, and community health workers of a federally qualified health center. An outreach program, Oyendo Bien (hearing wellness), a 5-week, Spanish-language health education program for older adults (n = 21) incorporated communication strategies and behavioral change techniques. Postprogram focus groups revealed increased self-efficacy and decreased stigma. After 1 year, 7 of 9 participants with hearing loss contacted for follow-up had sought some form of hearing-related health care. Future research should further investigate interventional audiology approaches to address health disparities.