Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary

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 an explanation of the support in the literature, the 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. (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 quality of life 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.

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.

New Age Hearing Testing at your Fingertips: Shravana Mitra App

INTRODUCTION

WHO estimated the prevalence of disabling hearing loss is 5% of the world population (430 million). People with a risk of hearing loss from noise exposure, ototoxic drugs, and comorbidities need regular hearing assessments. It is done by pure tone audiometry (PTA), requiring a skilled audiologist, special equipment, and a soundproof room. Modern technologies can help in overcoming these barriers. This study aimed to fill the lacuna by developing a new android-based application "Shravana Mitra" (Hearing companion) with features of both air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC) testing.

OBJECTIVES

To develop, corroborate and compare smartphone application-based audiometry with PTA.

METHODOLOGY

This study was done in three phases -(i) development of a mobile application, (ii) app validation in healthy individuals (iii) testing and comparison of results with PTA in individuals visiting OPD. The third phase was done as a cross-sectional observational study including 780 individuals visiting OPD of 10-60 years of age.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 32.89 years with female preponderance (57%). In AC testing, 83% of the pure tone average of the mobile application was within 5 dB of PTA thresholds and 99% was within 10 dB and for BC testing, 81% was within 5 dB of PTA thresholds and 98% within 10 dB.

CONCLUSION

Our user-friendly mobile application- Shravana Mitra is the first Indian application available in the google play store with both AC & BC testing, multiple language options and accuracy similar to PTA. Thus, it can be used as the best hearing screening tool in camps, high-risk individuals, or any healthcare setup requiring initial hearing assessment.

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA

BACKGROUND

While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA.

DESIGN

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime.

INTERVENTION

Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold).

MAIN MEASURES

Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

KEY RESULTS

CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness.

LIMITATION

Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

Self-reported hearing loss is associated with poorer perceived health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality: Findings from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent chronic condition impacting communication and may negatively influence patients' health care experiences.

OBJECTIVE

Determine associations of hearing loss with perceived health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality in a representative sample of the general population.

METHODS

The Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) is a household-based examination survey that collects data from a representative sample of Wisconsin residents. SHOW participants from years 2008-2013 with data on self-reported hearing loss and health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality were included in this study. Age- and sex- and multivariable-adjusted (additionally adjusted for race/ethnicity, education, marital status, public health region, smoking, chronic disease, self-reported health, and insurance coverage) logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations of hearing loss with participants' health care experiences. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There were 2438 individuals (42.1% men) included in this study with an average age of 48.3 (range 21-74; standard deviation [SD] 14.4) years. The number of participants who self-reported hearing loss was 642 (26.3%). After multivariable adjustment, hearing loss was associated with increased odds of perceived difficulties with health care access (OR 1.47 [1.05, 2.05]), timeliness (OR 1.69 [1.23, 2.32]), quality (OR 2.54 [1.50, 4.32]), and satisfaction (OR 2.50 [1.51, 4.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high prevalence of hearing loss and the growing aging population, there is an urgent need to prioritize interventions to improve health care provision for individuals with hearing loss.

Virus Infections in Older People

Older people are more prone to viral infections, and often have worse outcomes. This was well demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where a disproportionate number of deaths occurred in the oldest and frailest people. The assessment of the older person with a viral infection is complicated by the high prevalence of multiple comorbidities and sensory or cognitive impairment. They often present with common geriatric syndromes such as falls or delirium, rather than the more typical features of a viral illness in younger people. Comprehensive geriatric assessment by a specialist multidisciplinary team is the gold standard of management, as viral illness is unlikely to present in isolation of other healthcare needs. We discuss the presentation, diagnosis, prevention, and management of common viral infections-respiratory syncytial virus, coronavirus, norovirus, influenza, hepatitis, herpes, and dengue viruses-with special consideration of infections in the older patient.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposures

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Reframing Our Health Care System for Patients With Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

Nearly 20% of U.S. Americans report a hearing loss, yet our current health care system is poorly designed and equipped to effectively care for these individuals. Individuals with hearing loss report communication breakdowns, inaccessible health information, reduced awareness and training by health care providers, and decreased satisfaction while struggling with inadequate health literacy. These all contribute to health inequities and increased health care expenditures and inefficiencies. It is time to reframe the health care system for these individuals using existing models of best practices and accessibility to mitigate inequities and improve quality of care.

METHOD

A review of system-, clinic-, provider-, and patient-level barriers, along with existing and suggested efforts to improve care for individuals with hearing loss, are presented.

RESULTS

These strategies include improving screening and identification of hearing loss, adopting universal design and inclusion principles, implementing effective communication approaches, leveraging assistive technologies and training, and diversifying a team to better care for patients with hearing loss. Patients should also be encouraged to seek social support and resources from hearing loss organizations while leveraging technologies to help facilitate communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategies described introduce actionable steps that can be made at the system, clinic, provider, and patient levels. With implementation of these steps, significant progress can be made to more proactively meet the needs of patients with hearing loss. Presentation Video: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21215843.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening

Background

Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office.

Methods

Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan.

Results

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit.

Conclusions

Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Preventable risk factors of dementia: Population attributable fractions in a Brazilian population-based study

Background

Knowledge regarding the modifiable risk factors of dementia is fundamental to guide public health policy. We aimed to estimate the population attributable fraction of modifiable risk factors of dementia among adults from a nationwide epidemiological study.

Methods

We used the public database of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil) to calculate the Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) for ten risk factors, including education level, hearing loss, hypertension, alcohol consumption, obesity, active smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, and diabetes. PAF was estimated for this sample after accounting for the communality of each risk factor.

Findings

The ten preventable risk factors for dementia accounted for 50·5% of the Population Attributable Fraction in Brazil. Hearing loss (14·2%), physical inactivity (11·2%), and hypertension (10·4%) accounted for the highest PAF among all the risk factors. Considerable variation in the relative contribution of the different risk factors was found in different regions.

Interpretation

This study might provide an opportunity to change the impact of dementia in Brazil. By targeting modifiable risk factors of dementia, the health of individuals in Brazil might be considerably improved.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Cognitive decline, sensory impairment, and the use of audio-visual aids by long-term care facility residents

BACKGROUND

Hearing and vision impairments and the use of audio-visual aids are associated with cognitive decline in community-dwelling older people, but effects in long-term care facilities (LFCF) are unclear. We hypothesize that visual and hearing impairment are associated with cognitive decline and these relationships are mediated by using visual and hearing aids.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of a longitudinal study was conducted in the 7 government-subsidized LTCF operated by one of the largest non-governmental organizations in Hong Kong using data between 2005 and 2016. Eligible residents were ≥ 60 years of age without severe cognitive impairment at baseline who had stayed in the facilities for more than 3 years. All variables were measured by using the Minimum Data Set-Resident Assessment Instrument Version 2.0, Hong Kong version. The outcome was cognitive decline. Predictors were visual and hearing impairments. Mediators were the use of visual and hearing aids. General linear models were employed to test the hypotheses.

RESULTS

Results for 2,233 residents were analyzed, with a mean age of 82.1 ± 8.2 years and a mean follow-up period of 4.4 ± 0.8 years. Results showed that those who had visual impairment (p = 0.004) and hearing impairments (p = 0.022) had a higher risk of cognitive decline. Using hearing aids (coefficient = 0.0186, p < 0.05) positively mediates the effect of hearing impairment on cognitive decline. Using visual aids (coefficient = -0.0881, p < 0.05) negatively mediates the effects of visual impairment on cognitive decline.

CONCLUSION

In LTCF, hearing and visual impairments are associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline. Hearing aids often-users were associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline. LTCF residents with visual impairment did not use visual aids. Use of visual aids demonstrated potential effects in slowing cognitive decline. A future study with a larger and more diverse sample with attention to quality of devices is proposed to confirm its effects.

Noise exposure levels predict blood levels of the inner ear protein prestin

Serological biomarkers of inner ear proteins are a promising new approach for studying human hearing. Here, we focus on the serological measurement of prestin, a protein integral to a human’s highly sensitive hearing, expressed in cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs). Building from recent nonhuman studies that associated noise-induced OHC trauma with reduced serum prestin levels, and studies suggesting subclinical hearing damage in humans regularly engaging in noisy activities, we investigated the relation between serum prestin levels and environmental noise levels in young adults with normal clinical audiograms. We measured prestin protein levels from circulating blood and collected noise level data multiple times over the course of the experiment using body-worn sound recorders. Results indicate that serum prestin levels have a negative relation with noise exposure: individuals with higher routine noise exposure levels tended to have lower prestin levels. Moreover, when grouping participants based on their risk for a clinically-significant noise-induced hearing loss, we found that prestin levels differed significantly between groups, even though behavioral hearing thresholds were similar. We discuss possible interpretations for our findings including whether lower serum levels may reflect subclinical levels of OHC damage, or possibly an adaptive, protective mechanism in which prestin expression is downregulated in response to loud environments.

Enhancing Clinical Visibility of Hearing Loss in Cognitive Decline

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

Implementation of a Hearing Loss Screening Intervention in Primary Care

PURPOSE

Hearing loss (HL) is underdiagnosed and often unaddressed. A recent study of screening for HL using an electronic prompt showed efficacy in increasing appropriate referrals for subsequent testing. We build on the results of this study using a qualitative lens to explore implementation processes through the perspectives of family medicine clinicians.

METHODS

We collected clinic observations and semistructured interviews of family medicine clinicians and residents who interacted with the HL prompt. All data were analyzed using thematic, framework, and mixed methods integration strategies.

RESULTS

We interviewed 27 clinicians and conducted 10 observations. Thematic analysis resulted in 6 themes: (1) the prompt was overwhelmingly viewed as easy, simple to use, accurate; (2) clinicians considered prompt as an effective way to increase awareness and conversations with patients about HL; (3) clinician and staff buy-in played a vital role in implementation; (4) clinicians prioritized prompt during annual visits; (5) medical assistant involvement in prompt workflow varied by health system, clinic, and clinician; (6) prompt resulted in more conversations about HL, but uncertain impact on patient outcomes. Themes are presented alongside constructs of normalization process theory and intervention outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Integration of a HL screening prompt into clinical practice varied by clinician buy-in and beliefs about the impact on patient outcomes, involvement of medical assistants, and prioritization during clinical visits. Further research is needed to understand how to leverage clinician and staff buy-in and whether implementation of a new clinical prompt has sustained impact on HL screening and patient outcomes.

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies (N = 26 386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23 228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12 637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans.