Initial Results of the Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care (EAR-PC) Study

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.

Model Clinic to Increase Preventive Screenings Among Patients With Physical Disabilities: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Intervention Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

People with physical disabilities often experience premature multimorbidity and adverse health events. A tailored primary care approach for this vulnerable population that also accounts for social and functional risk factors could promote healthier aging and more equitable health care.

OBJECTIVE

This project will evaluate the implementation of a health program designed for people with physical disabilities. The proposed evaluation result is to generate the first best-practice protocol focused specifically on developing primary care to help reduce preventable causes of morbidity and improve functioning among people with physical disabilities.

METHODS

We will design and implement a pilot health program for people with physical disabilities at a primary care clinic within Michigan Medicine. The health program for people with physical disabilities will be an integrated intervention involving a tailored best practice alert designed to prompt family medicine providers to screen and monitor for common, preventable health conditions. The program will also collect social and functional status information to determine the patient's need for further care coordination and support. Adult participants from this clinic with identified physical disabilities will be targeted for potential enrollment. To create a quasi-experimental setting, a separate departmental clinic will serve as a control site for comparison purposes. A quantitative analysis to estimate the treatment effect of implementing this health program will be conducted using a difference-in-differences approach. Outcomes of interest will include the use of preventative services (eg, hemoglobin A1c for diabetes screening), social work assistance, and emergency and hospital services. These data will be extracted from electronic health records. Time-invariant covariates, particularly sociodemographic covariates, will be included in the models. A qualitative analysis of patient and health care provider interviews will also be completed to assess the effect of the health program. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scores will be assessed to both screen for depression and anxiety as well as explore program impacts related to addressing health and functioning needs related to physical disabilities in a primary care setting. These will be summarized through descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

This study was funded in September 2018, data collection started in September 2021, and data collection is expected to be concluded in September 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is a mixed methods evaluation of the effectiveness of an integrated health program designed for people with physical disabilities, based on a quasi-experimental comparison between an intervention and a control clinic site. The intervention will be considered successful if it leads to improvements in greater use of screening and monitoring for preventable health conditions, increased social worker referrals to assist with health and functioning needs, and improvements in emergency and hospital-based services. The findings will help inform best practices for people with physical disabilities in a primary care setting.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50105.

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 Health Perceptions and Literacy Among Primary Healthcare Providers in the United States: A National Cross-Sectional Survey

OBJECTIVE

To characterize current awareness, perceptions, and literacy surrounding hearing loss among United States primary healthcare professionals.

STUDY DESIGN

National cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred six healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Survey respondents included 205 primary care physicians and 201 nurse practitioners or physician assistants. When compared with 10 other common health conditions, only 1% of respondents ranked hearing loss as a "most important" health condition to manage. Less than half of providers reported recommending hearing testing for their patients at least once per year, whereas evaluation of blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, and blood glucose levels are recommended at least annually by more than 80% of providers. Although 95% of respondents indicated that it is somewhat important or very important for patients to know the standard definition for normal hearing, only 57% of surveyed providers know of a standard definition themselves, and only 28% reported familiarity with the concept of "20/20 hearing." Conversely, more than 80% of respondents know the "normal" metric for blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, blood glucose, and vision. Most respondents realize that hearing is important to overall health and hearing loss can impact personal safety, lead to social isolation, and negatively impact quality of life. Fifty-four percent also acknowledged a link between hearing loss and depression, but a majority were not very aware of the relationship of hearing loss to risk of falling and dementia, reduced income and job opportunities, and type 2 diabetes. Importantly, only 40% of providers believe hearing loss is treatable, and only 17% believe it is preventable.

CONCLUSION

Despite widespread literacy of what constitutes normal blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, blood glucose, and vision metrics, healthcare providers exhibit a poor understanding of normal hearing levels. Few providers prioritize hearing health or regularly recommend for annual hearing evaluation. Most providers believe that options for people with hearing loss are limited, which may have important implications for prioritizing discussion of hearing loss with patients.

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).

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.

Factors Associated With Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Background and Objectives

In the United States, up to two-thirds of older adults have hearing loss. Untreated hearing loss can have significant health outcomes, yet less than 20% of adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. In this study, we examined potential factors associated with hearing aid use, including detailed measures of health status, access to care, patient engagement, and technology use, in a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

Research Design and Methods

Cross-sectional study using the 2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Participants with self-reported hearing loss were included. The primary outcome was hearing aid use. Factors potentially associated with hearing aid use included: sociodemographics, health determinants, access to care, patient activation, and technology access/use.

Results

Overall, 5,146 participants were included. Of them, 27% reported using hearing aids. In a multivariable logistic regression model, predisposing factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included older age, identifying as a man, identifying as White, having completed college, having 3 or more chronic conditions, having dementia, not having trouble seeing, not having limitations in activities of daily living, having moderate relative to low information-seeking scores, and having a personal computer at home (range of odds ratios [ORs]: 1.22–4.46). Enabling factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included higher income, living alone relative to living with family members other than a spouse, and having a usual source of care (range of ORs: 1.43–1.54).

Discussion and Implications

In addition to addressing previously identified factors associated with hearing aid use, improving access to health care, technology, and information about hearing aids may improve the uptake of hearing aids. These findings help further inform our understanding on how to address low treatment levels of hearing loss in the community by identifying new populations to target and potentially modifiable risk factors for hearing aid use.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hearing Screening in Older Adults: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Age is the most common predictor of hearing loss; however, many older adults are not screened. Hearing screening could improve healthcare access, participation, and outcomes. Establishing whether hearing screening in older adults is cost-effective could improve the availability and utilization of screening.

METHODS

We searched nine databases in January 2020. Studies with populations aged 50+ and provided data on the cost-effectiveness of hearing screening were included in the review.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria and all found hearing screening programs to be cost-effective compared to no hearing screening, regardless of screening method (i.e., instrument or strategy). The maximum number of repeated screenings, coupled with younger ages, was most cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

This review suggests that hearing screening in older adults is cost-effective, however, the evidence is limited. There is pressing need for research focused on economic impacts of hearing healthcare in older adults to inform research, policy and practice.

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

PURPOSE

Hearing loss, the second most common disability in the United States, is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Identifying it in early stages could prevent its known substantial adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A multiple baseline design was implemented to assess a screening paradigm for identifying and referring patients aged ≥55 years with hearing loss at 10 family medicine clinics in 2 health systems. Patients completed a consent form and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI). An electronic alert prompted clinicians to screen for hearing loss during visits.

RESULTS

The 14,877 eligible patients during the study period had 36,701 encounters. Referral rates in the family medicine clinics increased from a baseline rate of 3.2% to 14.4% in 1 health system and from a baseline rate of 0.7% to 4.7% in the other. A general medicine comparison group showed referral rate increase from the 3.0% baseline rate to 3.3%. Of the 5,883 study patients who completed the HHI 25.2% (n=1,484) had HHI scores suggestive of hearing loss; those patients had higher referral rates, 28% vs 9.2% (P <.001). Of 1,660 patients referred for hearing testing, 717 had audiology data available for analysis: 669 (93.3%) were rated appropriately referred and 421 (58.7%) were considered hearing aid candidates. Overall, 71.5% of patients contacted felt their referral was appropriate.

CONCLUSION

An electronic alert used to remind clinicians to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals for at-risk patients. Audiologic and audiogram data support the effectiveness of the prompt. Clinicians should consider adopting this method to identify patients with hearing loss to reduce its known and adverse sequelae.

Determinants of Hearing Aid Use Among Older Americans With Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hearing loss (HL) is common among older adults and is associated with significant psychosocial, cognitive, and physical sequelae. Hearing aids (HA) can help, but not all individuals with HL use them. This study examines how social determinants may impact HA use.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study involving a secondary analysis of a nationally representative data set, the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 35,572). This was followed up with 1:1 qualitative interviews (n = 21) with community participants to clarify our findings. Both samples included individuals aged 55 and older with a self-reported HL, with or without HA. The main outcome measure was the proportion of participants with a self-reported HL who use HA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of HRS data indicated that younger, nonwhite, non-Hispanic, lower income, and less-educated individuals were significantly less likely to use HA than their referent groups (all p values < .001). Area of residence (e.g., urban) were not significantly associated with HA use. Qualitative findings revealed barriers to HA included cost, stigma, vanity, and a general low priority placed on addressing HL by health care providers. Facilitators to obtaining and using HA included family/friend support, knowledge, and adequate insurance coverage for HA.

IMPLICATIONS

Many socioeconomic factors hinder individuals' ability to obtain and use HA, but these obstacles appeared to be mitigated in part when insurance plans provided adequate HA coverage, or when their family/friends provided encouragement to use HA.