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

The significance of G8 and other geriatric assessments in urologic cancer management: A comprehensive review

In urologic oncology, which often involves older patients, it is important to consider how to manage their care appropriately. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a method that can address the specific needs of older cancer patients. The GA encompasses various assessment domains, but these domains exhibit variations across the literature. Some of the common items include functional ability, nutrition, comorbidities, cognitive ability, psychosocial disorders, polypharmacy, social and financial support, falls/imbalance, and vision/hearing. Despite the diversity of domains, there is limited consensus on reliable measurement methods. This review discusses the role of GA in managing urologic cancer in unique scenarios, such as those necessitating temporary or permanent urinary catheters or stomas due to urinary diversion. A comprehensive GA is time and human-resource-intensive in real-world clinical practice. Hence, simpler tools such as the Geriatric-8 (G8), capable of identifying high-risk patients requiring a detailed GA, are also under investigation in various contexts. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review on the G8. Our findings indicate that patients with low G8 scores encounter difficulties with stoma self-care after urinary diversion and have higher risks of urinary tract infections and ileus after radical cystectomy. The utilization of G8 as a screening tool for urologic cancer patients may facilitate the delivery of appropriate and personalized treatment and care.

Development and validation of the screening tool for age-related hearing loss in the community based on the information platform

INTRODUCTION

Currently, age-related hearing loss has become prevalent, awareness and screening rates remain dismally low. Duing to several barriers, as time, personnel training and equipment costs, available hearing screening tools do not adequately meet the need for large-scale hearing detection in community-dwelling older adults. Therefore, an accurate, convenient, and inexpensive hearing screening tool is needed to detect hearing loss, intervene early and reduce the negative consequences and burden of untreated hearing loss on individuals, families and society.

OBJECTIVES

The study harnessed "medical big data" and "intelligent medical management" to develop a multi-dimensional screening tool of age-related hearing loss based on WeChat platform.

METHODS

The assessment of risk factors was carried out by cross-sectional survey, logistic regression model and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Combining risk factor assessment, Hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening version and analog audiometry, the screening software was been developed by JavaScript language and been evaluated and verified.

RESULTS

A total of 401 older adults were included in the cross-sectional study. Logistic regression model (univariate, multivariate) and reference to literature mention rate of risk factors, 18 variables (male, overweight/obesity, living alone, widowed/divorced, history of noise, family history of deafness, non-light diet, no exercising habit, smoking, drinking, headset wearer habit, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, hyperuricemia, hypothyroidism, history of ototoxic drug use) were defined as risk factors. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the cumulative score of risk factors for early prediction of age-related hearing loss was 0.777 [95% CI (0.721, 0.833)]. The cumulative score threshold of risk factors was defined as 4, to classify the older adults into low-risk (< 4) and high-risk (≥ 4) hearing loss groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the screen tool were 100%, 65.5%, 71.8%, and 100.0%, respectively. The Kappa index was 0.6.

CONCLUSIONS

The screening software enabled the closed loop management of real-time data transmission, early warning, management, whole process supervision of the hearing loss and improve self-health belief in it. The software has huge prospects for application as a screening approach for age-related hearing loss.

Age-Specific Association Between Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and Hearing Loss: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background and Objectives

Hearing loss is common and undertreated, and the impact of blood pressure variability (BPV) on the development of hearing loss remains unclear. We aimed to examine the age-specific association between visit-to-visit BPV and hearing loss.

Research Design and Methods

This nationally representative cohort study included 3,939 adults over 50 years from the Health and Retirement Study in the United States. Variabilities of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were assessed by standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation, and variability independent of the mean (VIM), using SBP and DBP from 3 visits. Hearing loss was assessed by self-rated questions. Cox proportional risk models were used to evaluate age-specific associations (50-64, 65-79, and ≥80 years) between BPV and hearing loss. The generalized additive Cox models were further used to visualize the combined effect of age and BPV.

Results

During the follow-up up to 7.0 years, 700 participants developed hearing loss. Among people aged under 65 years, we observed a 36% increased risk of hearing loss with per-SD increment in VIM of SBP (hazard ratio [HR] per SD 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.63) and a slightly significant association between VIM of DBP (HR per SD 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.45) and hearing loss. We did not observe significant associations among groups aged over 65 years (p > .05). The generalized additive Cox models also showed younger participants had stronger associations between BPV and hearing loss.

Discussion and Implications

Higher visit-to-visit variabilities of SBP were associated with an increased risk of hearing loss in middle-aged adults (50-65 years). Intervention in early BPV may help decrease hearing loss in adults aged over 50 years.

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.

Early Detection of Hearing Loss among the Elderly

BACKGROUND

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a complex communication disorder that affects the cochlea and central auditory pathway. The goal of this study is to characterize this type of hearing loss and to identify non-invasive, inexpensive, and quick tests to detect ARHL among elderly adults, seeking to preserve quality of life and reduce the burden on healthcare systems.

METHODS

An observational, prospective study is conducted with >55-year-old subjects divided into the following groups: normal range (Group A), detected but not treated (Group B), and detected and treated (Group C). During follow-up, Speech Spatial Qualities (SSQ12), and Hearing Handicap Inventory in the Elderly Screening test (HHIE-S) questionnaires were assessed, along with hearing levels (hearing thresholds at 4 kHz were studied in more depth), and a series of tests and questionnaires to assess balance, cognitive level, level of dependence, and depression.

RESULTS

A total of 710 patients were included in this study. The duration of hearing loss (11.8 yr. in Group B and 21.0 yr. in Group C) and average time-to-treatment for Group C (14.1 yr.) are both protracted. Both of the used questionnaires show statistically significant differences among the groups, revealing greater handicaps for Group C. Audiometry performed at 4 kHz shows how hearing loss progresses with age, finding differences between men and women. There is a correlation between time-to-treatment in Group C and the cognitive test DSST (-0.26; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

HHIE-S, SSQ12, and 4 kHz audiometry are sensitive and feasible tests to implement in screening programs.

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force: Recommendations for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded over time due to evidence demonstrating identification and implantation of appropriate cochlear implant (CI) candidates lead to significant improvements in speech recognition and quality of life (QoL). However, clinical practice is variable, with some providers using outdated criteria and others exceeding current labeled indications. As a results, only a fraction of those persons who could benefit from CI technology receive it. This document summarizes the current evidence for determining appropriate referrals for adults with bilateral hearing loss into CI centers for formal evaluation by stressing the importance of treating each ear individually and a "revised 60/60 rule". By mirroring contemporary clinical practice and available evidence, these recommendations will also provide a standardized testing protocol for CI candidates using a team-based approach that prioritizes individualized patient care. This manuscript was developed by the Adult Cochlear Implantation Candidacy Task Force of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance using review of the existing literature and clinical consensus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:S1-S14, 2024.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no).

DESIGN

We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider.

RESULTS

All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Optimizing age-related hearing risk predictions: an advanced machine learning integration with HHIE-S

OBJECTIVES

The elderly are disproportionately affected by age-related hearing loss (ARHL). Despite being a well-known tool for ARHL evaluation, the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening version (HHIE-S) has only traditionally been used for direct screening using self-reported outcomes. This work uses a novel integration of machine learning approaches to improve the predicted accuracy of the HHIE-S tool for ARHL in older adults.

METHODS

We employed a dataset that was gathered between 2016 and 2018 and included 1,526 senior citizens from several Taipei City Hospital branches. 80% of the data were used for training (n = 1220) and 20% were used for testing (n = 356). XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, and LightGBM were among the machine learning models that were only used and assessed on the training set. In order to prevent data leakage and overfitting, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) model-which had the greatest AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.85)-was then only used on the holdout testing data.

RESULTS

On the testing set, the LGBM model showed a strong AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.86), far outperforming conventional techniques. Notably, several HHIE-S items and age were found to be significant characteristics. In contrast to traditional HHIE research, which concentrates on the psychological effects of hearing loss, this study combines cutting-edge machine learning techniques-specifically, the LGBM classifier-with the HHIE-S tool. The incorporation of SHAP values enhances the interpretability of the model's predictions and provides a more comprehensive comprehension of the significance of various aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our methodology highlights the great potential that arises from combining machine learning with validated hearing evaluation instruments such as the HHIE-S. Healthcare practitioners can anticipate ARHL more accurately thanks to this integration, which makes it easier to intervene quickly and precisely.

Subjective and Objective Hearing Loss Among US Adult Cancer Survivors

Importance

Cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing hearing loss (HL) due to older age, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the prevalence of HL among US cancer survivors remains unknown. Additionally, there is a lack of uniform HL screening guidelines for this enlarging population.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of subjective HL and objective HL by audiometry test among cancer survivors and compare them with the general population as well as to assess the performance of subjective HL questions in detecting true (ie, audiometry-confirmed) HL.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a cross-sectional design, adults between ages 20 and 80 years who had audiometry testing and responded to a hearing questionnaire from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2012, 2015-2016, and 2017 to March 2020 prepandemic survey cycles) were selected. Data analysis was conducted from August 13, 2022, to July 26, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The weighted prevalence of subjective HL (troublesome hearing and tinnitus) and objective HL (speech-frequency HL and high-frequency HL) by audiometry were calculated. Analyses with χ2 testing and multiadjusted logistic regression models were used to compare HL between cancer survivors and the general population. To evaluate the performance of subjective HL questions as a tool to screen for objective HL by audiometry, areas under the curve were estimated using age- and gender-adjusted logistic regression.

Results

Among the total 9337 participants (weighted n = 90 098 441; 51.2% women), 10.3% were cancer survivors. Compared with the general population, cancer survivors had a higher prevalence of troublesome hearing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.84), tinnitus (AOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.74), speech-frequency HL (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.85), and high-frequency HL (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.29-2.34). When using the subjective HL tool and questioning regarding whether the participants were having troublesome hearing and/or tinnitus in screening for HL, the age- and gender-adjusted area under the curve was 0.88 in detecting speech-frequency HL and 0.90 in detecting high-frequency HL.

Conclusion and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that cancer survivors have a significantly higher prevalence of HL than the general population. Two subjective HL questions could potentially accurately identify those who have true HL and provide a simple and efficient screening tool for health care professionals. Cancer survivors and their families should be educated and encouraged to discuss hearing concerns, and health care professionals should facilitate raising awareness and provide early screening and timely referral when HL is identified.

Machine Learning Prediction of Objective Hearing Loss With Demographics, Clinical Factors, and Subjective Hearing Status

OBJECTIVE

Hearing loss (HL) is highly prevalent, yet underrecognized and underdiagnosed. Lack of standardized screening, awareness, cost, and access to hearing testing present barriers to HL identification. To facilitate prescreening and selection of patients who warrant audiometric evaluation, we developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict speech-frequency pure-tone average (PTA).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

METHODS

The cohort included 8918 adults (≥20 years) who completed audiometric testing with NHANES (2012-2018). The primary outcome measure was the prediction of better hearing ear speech-frequency PTA. Relevant predictors included demographics, medical conditions, and subjective assessment of hearing. Supervised ML with a tree-based architecture was used. Regression performance was determined by the mean absolute error (MAE) with binary classification assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Using the full set of predictors, the test set MAE between the ML-predicted and actual PTA was 5.29 dB HL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.97-5.61). The 5 most influential predictors of higher PTA were increased age, worse subjective hearing, male gender, increased body mass index, and history of smoking. The 5-factor abbreviated model performed comparably to the extended feature set with MAE 5.36 (95% CI: 5.03-5.69) and AUC for PTA > 25 dB HL of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94).

CONCLUSION

The ML model was able to predict PTA with patient demographics, clinical factors, and subjective hearing status. ML-based prediction may be used to identify individuals who could benefit most from audiometric evaluation.

Validation of a tablet-based assessment of auditory sensitivity for researchers

Quantifying hearing acuity is increasingly important across a wide range of research areas in the behavioral and neurosciences. Scientists have relied on either self-reported hearing status or the availability of diagnostic hearing assessment in past studies. There remains a need for a valid and reliable assessment of auditory sensitivity that can provide estimates of the magnitude of hearing loss, if present, without requirements for professional audiologists, facilities, and equipment that are needed to conduct a diagnostic hearing assessment. The goal of this experiment was to validate the NIH Toolbox® Hearing Threshold Test (HTT), a tablet-based hearing assessment available via iPad application that uses consumer-grade headphones, on a clinical sample of children and adults with varying degrees of hearing acuity. Electroacoustic analysis of the hearing assessment application and headphones demonstrated acoustic outputs within established conformity standards for hearing assessment. Twenty-seven children and 63 adults participated in a standard diagnostic hearing assessment and the experimental tablet-based assessment. The results showed that thresholds from the tablet-based assessment were highly correlated with thresholds from the clinical hearing assessment (r = .83-.93) for children and adults for all frequencies and across a range of levels of hearing acuity. The HTT also met clinical test-retest reliability standards (Cronbach's α > .86). The tablet-based hearing assessment provides acceptable estimates of hearing levels for children and adults when diagnostic audiometric assessment capabilities are not available.

Construction and Effect of the Three-Level and Two-Stage Screening Mode for Age-Related Hearing Loss: A Study Based on the Community in Shanghai, China

Background

There is a high incidence rate of age-related hearing loss. Severe hearing loss may increase the prevalence of mental illness, cognitive impairment, and even the risk of all-cause death.

Purpose

Construction of the three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss of the community and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Materials and Methods

A total of 401 participants (aged 60 years or older) from five typical communities were enrolled in the study. The risk factors assessment of age-related hearing loss was completed by using a cross-sectional survey and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multiple screening method was adopted and verified by serial and parallel tests, respectively. Based on research data, incorporate risk factors assessment, the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening Version (HHIE-s) and pure tone audiometry (PTA) were used to construct the screening mode.

Results

Multiple screening series testing and multiple screening parallel testing, including risk factors assessment, HHIE-s, and PTA, were used for verification: the sensitivity, specificity, and Kappa index were 70.5% and 9.2%, 95.0% and 71.6%, 0.26 and 0.63, respectively. Finally, the three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss was established. "Three-level" was defined as the risk factors assessment/HHIE-s (high-risk population), PTA (suspect population), and comprehensive hearing loss assessment (confirmed population). "Two-stage" was defined as the population screening by general practitioner in the community and target screening by otolaryngologist of the tertiary hospitals.

Conclusion

The three-level and two-stage screening mode for age-related hearing loss consists of the following framework: from population screening to target screening, from suspicious diagnosis to accurate diagnosis, from primary health care to tertiary hospitals. The study objective is to structure a new secondary prevention and treatment mode for age-related hearing loss with primary health care as the core, so as to help the front-end management of healthy aging.

Development of Novel Musical Stimuli to Investigate the Perception of Musical Emotions in Individuals With Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND

Many studies have examined the perception of musical emotion using excerpts from familiar music that includes highly expressed emotions to classify emotional choices. However, using familiar music to study musical emotions in people with acquired hearing loss could produce ambiguous results as to whether the emotional perception is due to previous experiences or listening to the current musical stimuli. To overcome this limitation, we developed new musical stimuli to study emotional perception without the effects of episodic memory.

METHODS

A musician was instructed to compose five melodies with evenly distributed pitches around 1 kHz. The melodies were created to express the emotions of happy, sad, angry, tender, and neutral. To evaluate whether these melodies expressed the intended emotions, two methods were applied. First, we classified the expressed emotions of melodies with selected musical features from 60 features using genetic algorithm-based k-nearest neighbors. Second, forty-four people with normal hearing participated in an online survey regarding the emotional perception of music based on dimensional and discrete approaches to evaluate the musical stimuli set.

RESULTS

Twenty-four selected musical features produced classification for intended emotions with an accuracy of 76%. The results of the online survey in the normal hearing (NH) group showed that the intended emotions were selected significantly more often than the others. K-means clustering analysis revealed that melodies with arousal and valence ratings corresponded to representative quadrants of interest. Additionally, the applicability of the stimuli was tested in 4 individuals with high-frequency hearing loss.

CONCLUSION

By applying the individuals with NH, the musical stimuli were shown to classify emotions with high accuracy, as expressed. These results confirm that the set of musical stimuli can be used to study the perceived emotion in music, demonstrating the validity of the musical stimuli, independent of innate musical bias such as due to episodic memory. Furthermore, musical stimuli could be helpful for further studying perceived musical emotion in people with hearing loss because of the controlled pitch for each emotion.

Intrinsic Capacities, Functional Ability, Physiological Systems, and Caregiver Support: A Targeted Synthesis of Effective Interventions and International Recommendations for Older Adults

The ageing population calls for interventions that can assist older people to age healthily. This study aimed to provide a targeted synthesis of high-level research and current evidence-based recommendations on effective interventions for maintaining or preventing the decline in intrinsic capacity, functional ability, and physiological systems, or for caregiver support. Nestled within the healthy ageing framework by the World Health Organization, available evidence was selected in a targeted manner, with the purpose of providing a synthesis that would allow the application of this knowledge in real life. As such, the outcome variables were examined through an Evidence and Gap Map of interventions for functional ability and through guidelines from leading institutions. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines on community-dwelling older adults with or without minor health limitations were considered. Thirty-eight documents were included and over fifty interventions identified. Physical activity interventions were consistently effective across several domains. Recommendations point to screening, whilst highlighting the importance of behavioural factors in the endeavour to age healthily. There is a wide range of activities which are likely to foster healthy ageing. To encourage their uptake, it is important for communities to offer suitable promotion and support, and to make these accessible to the public.

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.

Usability, acceptability and clinical utility of a mobile app to screen for hearing loss in older adults in a geriatric rehabilitation hospital

RATIONALE

Hearing loss is a common problem for older adults entering rehabilitation hospitals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To pilot a hearing loss screening device to determine feasibility, usability, and impact on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We screened all patients newly admitted to a geriatric day hospital for hearing loss using the SHOEBOX® QuickTest (SHOEBOX Ltd.) app as part of a quality improvement programme. We measured the time it took for each patient to complete screening and recorded any issues they had using the app. We recorded the number of patients who screened positive who did not have a previous diagnosis and changes in physician behaviours after they received their patients' results.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients with a mean age of 83.4 years used the hearing screener. All patients were able to complete the screening with a mean time to completion of 10 min and 48 s. Ninety-nine percent of patients screened positive for hearing loss. Of these positives 56% were in participants not already known to have hearing loss. Physicians often changed their behaviour after receiving results by using assistive devices during visits and referring to audiology for formal testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for hearing loss is feasible in a geriatric day hospital. The SHOEBOX QuickTest app is acceptable, usable, resulting in the identification of undiagnosed hearing loss and in changes to physician behaviour.

Prevalence of otolaryngological disease in a refugee population compared to US‐born patients

Objective

Limited data exists regarding otolaryngological (ENT) disease in refugees and we aim to characterize its prevalence.

Methods

This is a retrospective descriptive chart review of adult US-born, immigrant, and refugee patients receiving care at a primary care clinic between 2014 and 2017. We report the prevalence of ENT disease by immigration status. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to assess differences in prevalence of ENT disease by immigration status.

Results

Of 995 patients included, 202 US-born, 450 immigrants, and 343 were refugees. Immigrants were older (46 years vs. 34 years among refugees, 35.5 years among US-born, p < .001) and more likely to be women (64% vs. 52% among refugees and 56% among US-born, p = .003). Among refugees, 27% were Central American, 22% Chinese, and 9.3% Middle Eastern. Hearing loss and allergic rhinitis were the top two diagnoses among the three groups of immigration status. More refugees had at least 1 ENT diagnosis compared to the other groups (16% vs 14% among immigrants and 6% US-born, p < .001). Refugees were more likely to have at least 1 ENT diagnosis compared to US-born individuals (age and gender adjusted [aOR] 3.40, 95% CI [1.80-6.95], p < .001) and immigrants (aOR 1.62, [1.05-2.51], p = .03).

Conclusion

ENT disease is prevalent among refugees, necessitating standardized evaluation during refugee health assessments and identifying barriers to referral and treatment.

Level of evidence

2b.

Sensitivity and specificity of hearing tests for screening hearing loss in older adults

Objectives

The study aimed to determine the most appropriate hearing screening test to identify disabling hearing loss for adults aged 65 years or older.

Methods

This study included 577 older adults. Four hearing screening tests were considered in the study, including the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Screening (HHIE-s), three single question tests, the whisper test, and the finger rub test. The sensitivity and specificity of these tests referenced to the hearing threshold of disabling hearing loss were estimated.

Results

Among all tests, only the single self-perception question (0.7064 for sensitivity; 0.7225 for specificity) and whisper test (0.7833 for sensitivity; 0.7708 for specificity) could obtain both sensitivity and specificity higher than 70% for adults aged ≥65 years.

Conclusion

Overall, we suggest using the whisper test to identify disabling hearing loss (>40 dB HL at the better ear) for adults aged 65 years or older. However, if the conditions do not permit, the single self-perception question is also acceptable. Moreover, HHIE-s might not be a good test to detect disabling hearing loss for adults aged 80 years or older.

Health-related quality of life in various health conditions: two consecutive surveys of older Japanese adults

PURPOSE

Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in various health conditions in different countries is important given the regional differences. This study employed large-scale nationwide data targeting older adults in Japan to estimate the HRQOL in the key health conditions that are the major causes of disability.

METHODS

Our data were derived from two survey waves (2016 and 2019 surveys) of cross-sectional data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study, an ongoing nationwide study targeting functionally independent older adults in Japan. A total of 28,345 individuals from 27 of the 47 Japanese provinces were analyzed. The EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was employed to assess the HRQOL utility scores. The targeted minimum loss-based estimator with sampling weighting methods was applied to estimate the utility score in eight major health conditions, including sensory organ disease, musculoskeletal disease, oral disorders, and depressive disorders.

RESULTS

The estimated HRQOL utility score for those with the poorest health conditions in self-rated health, hearing loss, vision loss, number of remaining teeth (e.g., no teeth with no denture use), oral dysfunction, depressive symptoms, chronic low back pain, and chronic knee pain was 0.576 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.555-0.598), 0.768 (95% CI 0.737-0.800), 0.680 (95% CI 0.662-0.699), 0.809 (95% CI 0.796-0.821), 0.776 (95% CI 0.764-0.788), 0.723 (95% CI 0.710-0.737), 0.715 (95% CI 0.690-0.739), and 0.742 (95% CI 0.722-0.763), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We successfully provided a catalog for the HRQOL utility score in key health conditions that are the leading causes of disability among older adults.

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.

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.

Audiology, Medicine, and Pharmacy Interprofessional Preliminary Interviews and Discussions: Improving Hearing Health Care in Rural Alabama

PURPOSE

Access and affordability of hearing health care varies depending on residency and individual financial means. Those living in rural areas have limited health care resources and experience higher levels of poverty compared to those living in urban regions. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of interprofessional collaboration among physicians and audiologists and pharmacists and audiologists to improve access and affordability of hearing health care in rural communities.

METHOD

Sixteen family physicians and medicine residents and 15 community pharmacists participated in the study. Physicians and residents completed an online survey to assess education regarding hearing health care and their understanding of hearing loss intervention. They also participated in small virtual focus group discussions. Pharmacists participated in virtual discussions based on guided questions.

RESULTS

The discussions with both physicians and pharmacists highlighted the need for more education, resources, and awareness of the negative impact of hearing loss on overall quality of life. Comments from these discussions were placed within the socio-ecological model of health behavior to increase understanding of hearing health behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased collaboration among medical professionals has the potential to improve access to hearing health care for those living in audiologically underserved regions of the country. Further research will identify how to increase effective and sustainable hearing health care resources in rural communities.

Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms and Explainability Techniques to Detect Hearing Loss From a Speech-in-Noise Screening Test

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the performance of multivariate machine learning (ML) models applied to a speech-in-noise hearing screening test and investigate the contribution of the measured features toward hearing loss detection using explainability techniques.

METHOD

Seven different ML techniques, including transparent (i.e., decision tree and logistic regression) and opaque (e.g., random forest) models, were trained and evaluated on a data set including 215 tested ears (99 with hearing loss of mild degree or higher and 116 with no hearing loss). Post hoc explainability techniques were applied to highlight the role of each feature in predicting hearing loss.

RESULTS

Random forest (accuracy = .85, sensitivity = .86, specificity = .85, precision = .84) performed, on average, better than decision tree (accuracy = .82, sensitivity = .84, specificity = .80, precision = .79). Support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting had similar performance as random forest. According to post hoc explainability analysis on models generated using random forest, the features with the highest relevance in predicting hearing loss were age, number and percentage of correct responses, and average reaction time, whereas the total test time had the lowest relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a multivariate approach can help detect hearing loss with satisfactory performance. Further research on a bigger sample and using more complex ML algorithms and explainability techniques is needed to fully investigate the role of input features (including additional features such as risk factors and individual responses to low-/high-frequency stimuli) in predicting hearing loss.

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).

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use Among Adults in France in the CONSTANCES Study

IMPORTANCE

Although hearing loss is common in the population worldwide, the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use in the adult French population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the CONSTANCES cohort, a representative sample of the French population. Volunteers aged 18 to 75 years were recruited at 21 preventive health centers between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. The present study included participants with audiometric data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were prevalence of hearing loss and disabling hearing loss overall and by sex and age group and prevalence of self-reported hearing aid use among those with disabling hearing loss. Hearing loss was defined as a pure-tone average (PTA) in the better ear of 20 dB or higher, and disabling hearing loss was defined as a PTA in the better ear of 35 dB or higher.

RESULTS

Of 200 870 participants in the CONSTANCES study, 186 460 had full audiometric data and were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [13.5] years); 100 330 (53.8%) were female, and 86 130 (46.2%) were male. Of these participants, 24.8% (95% CI, 24.6%-25.0%) had hearing loss and 4.3% (95% CI, 4.2%-4.4%) had disabling hearing loss. The prevalence rates of hearing loss increased from 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.9%) at age 18 to 25 years to 73.3% (95% CI, 69.5%-77.2%) at age 71 to 75 years among men and from 4.4% (95% CI, 3.9%-5.0%) at age 18 to 25 years to 64.1% (95% CI, 59.7%-68.4%) at age 71 to 75 years among women. The prevalence of disabling hearing loss increased from 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.4%) among participants aged 18 to 25 years to 23.3% (95% CI, 20.7%-26.0%) among participants aged 71 to 75 years. Among the 8050 participants with disabling hearing loss, 36.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-37.9%) reported using hearing aids, including 56.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.4%) aged 18 to 25 years and 32.9% (95% CI, 26.8%-39.2%) aged 71 to 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, hearing loss was prevalent in France, and the prevalence of hearing loss increased with age among both men and women. Hearing aids were underused, particularly among older individuals. These findings suggest that hearing loss prevention and screening in the French population are needed.

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.

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Age-related sensorineural hearing loss is a common health problem among adults. Nearly 16% of US adults 18 years or older report difficulty hearing. The prevalence of perceived hearing loss increases with age. Hearing loss can adversely affect an individual's quality of life and ability to function independently and has been associated with increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, social isolation, and cognitive decline.

OBJECTIVE

To update its 2012 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older.

POPULATION

Asymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Because of a lack of evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in asymptomatic older adults are uncertain and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in older adults. (I statement).