Hearing Screening in the Community

A Comparison of Hearing Thresholds, and the Resulting Prescribed Gain and Hearing Aid Outputs, Using Gold Standard Audiometry and the TympaHealth Hearing Assessment Tool

OBJECTIVE

Phone- and tablet-based hearing testing systems are now widely available. Here, we evaluated one such system from TympaHealth by comparing air conduction thresholds and resultant hearing aid targets and output, measured with the TympaHealth system with those measured using standard audiometry.

DESIGN

The hearing thresholds of 35 adults were measured using standard audiometry and the TympaHealth system. Each set of thresholds was used to generate NAL-NL2 targets and program a hearing aid. The data from each system were compared.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman analyses showed overall mean differences between thresholds measured with each system to be small, with 85% of TympaHealth thresholds being within ±5 dB of the standard audiometric thresholds, although TympaHealth thresholds were higher (poorer) than the standard audiometric thresholds. The hearing aid targets and gains generated from the standard audiometric thresholds were lower (less amplification) than those generated from the TympaHealth thresholds but again, mean differences at each frequency were small and likely imperceptible.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the possibility that valid hearing testing can take place outside of a clinical booth using portable systems like that from TympaHealth, opening up the possibility of testing hearing and fitting hearing aids through pharmacies, opticians, and in care homes.

Hearing health survey of the population in Bangkok

In this cross-sectional random survey among Thai adults living in Bangkok, we aimed to identify the prevalence of hearing problems and examine their relationship with individual factors. We administered a self-report questionnaire and performed pure-tone air conduction threshold audiometry. A total of 2463 participants (1728 female individuals) aged 15-96 years were included. The hearing loss prevalence was 53.02% and increased with age. The prevalence of a moderate or greater degree of hearing impairment was 2.8%. Participants aged 65 years and over had 8.56 and 6.79 times greater hearing loss and hearing impairment than younger participants, respectively. Male participants were twice as likely to have hearing loss and hearing impairment as female individuals. Participants with higher education levels showed less likelihood of having hearing loss and hearing impairment than those with no or a primary school education. Participants who ever worked under conditions with loud noise for > 8 h per day had 1.56 times greater hearing loss than those without such exposure. An inconsistent correlation was found between hearing loss, hearing impairment and noncommunicable diseases (diabetes, hypertension, and obesity). Although most participants had mild hearing loss, appropriate care and monitoring are necessary to prevent further loss in such individuals. The questionnaire-based survey found only people with hearing problems that affect daily communication.

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.

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

Objectives

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

Study Design

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

Setting

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Screening strategy and time points for newborn hearing re-screening with high risk factors

Objective

To compare and analyze the pass rate and screening strategy of hearing rescreening for newborns with high risk factors.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of high-risk newborns who failed their initial newborn hearing screen and subsequently underwent secondary hearing tests from June 2011 to June 2018 in Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center were performed.

Results

Eight hundred and sixty-eight newborns with high risk factors were included in the study. The 57-70 days (83.5%) and 71-84 days (83.4%) group had the highest pass rate compared with 42-56 days (75.8%) and < 42 days (68.3%) group. As for different screening strategies, the pass rate of OAE(otoacoustic emissions), AABR (auto auditory brainstem response) and OAE + AABR was the highest in 57-70 days group and 71-84 days group, respectively. The OAE + AABR had the lowest pass rate compared to the other two modalities. When the pass rate was compared as different risk factors, the 57-70 days and 71-84 days group also had the highest pass rate compared with 42-56 days and < 42 days group and the pass rate had no significant differences among various risk factors group.

Conclusion

Our results showed that all the pass rate of OAE, AABR and OAE + AABR was the highest in 57-70 days group and 71-84 days group with significant difference, suggesting that the delayed screening time (>57 days) may increase the re-screening pass rate and reduce anxiety of parents, which is of great significance for clinical work.

Using a decision tree approach to determine hearing aid ownership in older adults

PURPOSE

The main clinical intervention for older adults with hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. However, uptake and usage in this population have historically been reported as low. The aim of this study was to understand the hearing loss characteristics, from measured audiometric hearing loss and self-perceived hearing handicap, that contribute to the decision of hearing aid ownership.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 2833 adults aged 50+ years, of which 329 reported hearing aid ownership, were involved with a population-based survey with audiometric hearing assessments. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to classify hearing aid ownership from audiometric measurements and hearing disability outcomes.

RESULTS

An overall accuracy of 92.5% was found for the performance of the CART analysis in predicting hearing aid ownership from hearing loss characteristics. By including hearing disability, sensitivity for predicting hearing aid ownership increased by up to 40% compared with just audiometric hearing loss measurements alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision tree approach that considers both objectively measured hearing loss and self-perceived hearing disability, could facilitate a more tailored and personalised approach for determining hearing aid needs in the older population. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWithout intervention, older adults with hearing loss are at higher risk of cognitive decline and higher rates of depression, anxiety, social isolation.The provision of hearing aids can compensate hearing function, however, uptake and usage have been reported as low.Using a more precise cut-off from audiometric measures and self-perceived hearing disability scores could facilitate a tailored and personalised approach to screen and identify older adults for hearing aid needs.

Increasing obstructive sleep apnea risk is associated with hearing impairment in middle-aged Chinese men-A cross-sectional study

Objective

Midlife males with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) bear a high risk for cardiovascular diseases. However, the association of OSA and hearing impairment is controversial. Our objective was to observe the incidence of hearing loss in middle-aged males with different risks for OSA.

Methods

794 men aged 40–65 who participated in health examination and pure tone hearing screening between January and June 2021 were recruited in the study. Medical history was collected. Height, weight and blood pressure were tested, and biochemical test including blood lipids and blood glucose was performed. According to the STOP-BANG score, the observed subjects were divided into low, intermediate and high groups for OSA risk. Hearing impairment was defined as failure in responding to any pure tone of 25 dB HL in any ear at the frequencies: 4 kHz for high frequency range and 0.5k, 1k, 2 kHz for low/medium frequency range. The incidence of hearing loss in those groups was compared after adjusting the cardiovascular risk factors.

Results

The incidence of hearing impairment in the groups of intermediate, high, and intermediate/high risk for OSA (46.9%, 45.2%, 46.3%, respectively) were higher than that in the group of low risk for OSA (33.3%, P<0.001). After adjusting cardiovascular risk factors, the risk of hearing impairment in the group of high risk for OSA is 1.64 times of the group of low risk for OSA (95%CI: 1.02–2.69, P<0.05). The risk of hearing impairment at high frequency(4kHz) in the group of intermediate/high risk for OSA is 1.43 times of the group of low-risk for OSA (95%CI: 1.00–2.06, P<0.05).

Conclusion

The risk of hearing impairment in midlife men with high, intermediate/high risk for OSA is significantly increased, especially at high frequency of 4 kHz.

Construction and Evaluation of a High-Frequency Hearing Loss Screening Tool for Community Residents

Early screening and detection of individuals at high risk of high-frequency hearing loss and identification of risk factors are critical to reduce the prevalence at community level. However, unlike those for individuals facing occupational auditory hazards, a limited number of hearing loss screening models have been developed for community residents. Therefore, this study used lasso regression with 10-fold cross-validation for feature selection and model construction on 38 questionnaire-based variables of 4010 subjects and applied the model to training and testing cohorts to obtain a risk score. The model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.844 in the model validation stage and individuals’ risk scores were subsequently stratified into low-, medium-, and high-risk categories. A total of 92.79% (1094/1179) of subjects in the high-risk category were confirmed to have hearing loss by audiometry test, which was 3.7 times higher than that in the low-risk group (25.18%, 457/1815). Half of the key indicators were related to modifiable contexts, and they were identified as significantly associated with the incident hearing loss. These results demonstrated that the developed model would be feasible to identify residents at high risk of hearing loss via regular community-level health examinations and detecting individualized risk factors, and eventually provide precision interventions.

Factors Associated With Self-Perceived Hearing Handicap in Adults From Hispanic/Latino Background: Findings From the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine what factors, including acculturation (language and social contact preferences), were associated with self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. We utilized the Aday-Andersen behavioral model of health services utilization to frame our hypotheses that predisposing characteristics (age, sex, education, city of residence, Hispanic/Latino background, and acculturation), enabling resources (annual income and current health insurance coverage), and need (measured hearing loss and self-reported hearing loss) would be related to clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap as measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory - Screening (HHI-S) version.

DESIGN

We analyzed baseline data collected from 2008 to 2011 as part of the multisite Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Data were from 6585 adults with hearing loss (defined by a worse-ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz pure-tone average [PTA] of ≥25 dB HL and/or a 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz high-frequency PTA of ≥25 dB HL) aged 18 to 74 years from various Hispanic/Latino backgrounds. We conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression models examining the roles of independent variables of interest representing predisposing, enabling, and need indicators on the occurrence of clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap (e.g., HHI-S score > 8).

RESULTS

Among included participants, 953 (14.5%) had an HHI-S score >8. The final model revealed significant associations between predisposing characteristics, enabling resources, need, and HHI-S outcome. Predisposing characteristics and need factors were associated with higher odds of reporting self-perceived hearing handicap (HHI-S score >8) including acculturation as measured by the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.50), female sex (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.27-2.33), and poorer worse ear 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz PTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03); suggesting that a 5-decibel increase in a person's PTA was consistent with 10% higher odds of a HHI-S score of >8. Greater enabling resources were associated with lower odds of reporting clinically-significant self-perceived hearing handicap: compared with individuals with income <$10,000/year, the multivariable-adjusted OR among individuals with income $40,000 to $7500/year was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89) and among individuals with income >$75,000/year was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.13-0.59]; p-trend < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest there are associations between predisposing, enabling and need variables consistent with the Aday-Andersen model and self-perceived hearing handicap among adults from Hispanic/Latino background. The influence of language and culture on perceived hearing loss and associated handicap is complex, and deserves more attention in future studies. Our findings warrant further investigation into understanding the role of language and language access in hearing health care utilization and outcomes, as the current body of literature is small and shows mixed outcomes.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Pure-Tone and Subjective Hearing Screenings Using Spanish-Language Questions

Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivities and specificities of different audiometric hearing screening criteria and single-item and multi-item hearing disability questionnaires among a group of Spanish-speaking adults in a rural community. Method Participants were 131 predominantly older (77% 65+ years) Hispanic/Latinx adults (98%). A structured Spanish-language interview and pure-tone threshold test data were analyzed for each participant. The sensitivities and specificities of three single questions and the Hearing Handicap Index for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S; Ventry & Weinstein, 1983) in Spanish, as well as three audiometric screening criteria, were evaluated in relation to the pure-tone threshold test for detecting hearing loss. Results Sensitivity and specificity of audiometric screening criteria varied, but the highest sensitivity was found for the criterion of > 25 dB HL at 1-4 kHz in either ear. The single self-perception question, "¿Cree usted que tiene pérdida de audición? (Do you think you have a hearing loss?)," was shown to be the most sensitive self-report screening compared to other single-item questions and the HHIE-S. This single question was as sensitive as an audiometric screening to detect a moderate hearing loss (> 40 dB HL in either ear). Results from the Spanish HHIE-S indicated poor performance to detect hearing loss in this population, consistent with previous research. Conclusions Among older Spanish-speaking adults, self-reported hearing status had varying sensitivities depending on the question asked. However, of the tools evaluated, the self-perception question proved to be a more sensitive and specific tool than a multi-item screen. Objective audiometric testing (> 25 dB HL) resulted in the highest sensitivity to detect a mild hearing loss.

Development of a hearing help-seeking questionnaire based on the theory of planned behavior

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to develop and assess a questionnaire measuring the constructs of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) regarding older adults' behaviours towards seeking a hearing test.

DESIGN

Older adults who failed a hearing screening completed a newly developed Theory of Planned Behavior-Hearing Help Seeking (TPB-HHS) questionnaire. A principal components analysis (PCA) examined the factor structure of the questionnaire, and a reliability analysis determined the internal consistency of the factors. An examination of six-month follow-up data determined whether the questionnaire differentiated between individuals who did and did not seek out a hearing test by comparing their TPB-HHS scores.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 407 adults aged 50 to 89 recruited at community hearing screenings.

RESULTS

PCA and reliability analyses resulted in a 4-factor, 18 item questionnaire. Three of four factors demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. The TPB-HHS explained 60.18% of the variance and factors were interpreted to be measuring the constructs of Intentions, Perceived Behavioral Control, Attitudes, and Subjective Norms. Individuals who sought a hearing test scored significantly higher on the Intentions, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Attitudes scales than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPB-HHS provides insight into underlying psychological mechanisms that drive behaviours related to hearing help-seeking in older adults.