Unravelling the dynamics of mental health inequalities in England: A 12-year nationwide longitudinal spatial analysis of recorded depression prevalence.

Background: Depression is one of the most significant public health issues, but evidence of geographic patterns and trends of depression is limited. We aimed to examine the spatio-temporal patterns and trends of depression prevalence among adults in a nationwide longitudinal spatial study in England and evaluate the influence of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation in explaining patterns. Methods: Information on recorded depression prevalence was obtained from the indicator Quality and Outcomes Framework: Depression prevalence that measured the annual percentage of adults diagnosed with depression for Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) from 2011 to 2022. We applied Cluster and Outlier Analysis using the Local Moran's I algorithm. Local effects of deprivation on depression in 2020 examined with Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Inequalities in recorded prevalence were presented using Prevalence Rate Ratios (PRR). Results: The North West Region of England had the highest concentration of High-High clusters of depression, with 17.4% of the area having high values surrounded by high values in both space and time and the greatest percentage of areas with a high rate of increase (43.1%). Inequalities widened among areas with a high rate of increase in prevalence compared to those with a lower rate of increase, with the PRR increasing from 1.66 (99% CI 1.61-1.70) in 2011 to 1.81 (99% CI 1.76-1.85) by 2022. Deprivation explained 3%-39% of the variance in depression in 2020 across the country. Conclusions: It is crucial to monitor depression's spatial patterns and trends and investigate mechanisms of mental health inequalities. Our findings can help identify priority areas and target prevention and intervention strategies in England. Evaluating mental health interventions in different geographic contexts can provide valuable insights to policymakers on the most effective and context-sensitive strategies, enabling them to allocate resources towards preventing the worsening of mental health inequalities.

Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output.

Background: In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries. Methods: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals. Results: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences. Conclusions: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.

Reboot coaching programme: a mixed-methods evaluation assessing resilience, confidence, burnout and depression in medical students.

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health in medical students is a global concern. Effective interventions are required, which are tailored towards the training-related stressors medical students experience. The Reboot coaching programme is an online, tailored intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles. AIMS: To evaluate whether the Reboot coaching programme tailored for medical students was feasible and associated with improvements in mental health outcome indicators. METHODS: Medical students participated in two group online workshops and a one-to-one coaching call with a Reboot-trained licensed psychological therapist. Participants provided data at: baseline (T1), post-workshops (T2), post-coaching call (T3) and 4-month follow-up (T4). Outcome measures included resilience, confidence, burnout and depression. Feedback was provided regarding the workshops at T2. RESULTS: 115 participants (93/80.9% women; mage = 23.9; SD = 2.8) were recruited, 83 (72.2%) completed all intervention elements and 82 (71.3%) provided T4 data, surpassing recruitment and retention targets. There were significant improvements following baseline in resilience (ps < .001), confidence (ps < .001), burnout (ps < .001) and depression (ps ≤ .001). Most participants agreed the workshops imparted useful skills (n = 92; 99%) and would recommend Reboot to others (n = 89; 95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Existing interventions have produced mixed results regarding their effectiveness in improving medical students' mental health. Reboot is a feasible intervention in this group which is associated with improvements in resilience, confidence, burnout and depression. Further controlled studies of Reboot are now needed.

Green-blue space exposure changes and impact on individual-level well-being and mental health: a population-wide dynamic longitudinal panel study with linked survey data.

Background: Cross-sectional evidence suggests that living near green and blue spaces benefits mental health; longitudinal evidence is limited. Objectives: To quantify the impact of changes in green and blue spaces on common mental health disorders, well-being and health service use. Design: A retrospective, dynamic longitudinal panel study. Setting: Wales, UK. Participants: An e-cohort comprising 99,682,902 observations of 2,801,483 adults (≥ 16 years) registered with a general practice in Wales (2008-2019). A 5312-strong 'National Survey for Wales (NSW) subgroup' was surveyed on well-being and visits to green and blue spaces. Main outcome measures: Common mental health disorders, general practice records; subjective well-being, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Data sources: Common mental health disorder and use of general practice services were extracted quarterly from the Welsh Longitudinal General Practice Dataset. Annual ambient greenness exposure, enhanced vegetation index and access to green and blue spaces (2018) from planning and satellite data. Data were linked within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Methods: Multilevel regression models examined associations between exposure to green and blue spaces and common mental health disorders and use of general practice. For the National Survey for Wales subgroup, generalised linear models examined associations between exposure to green and blue spaces and subjective well-being and common mental health disorders. Results and conclusions: Our longitudinal analyses found no evidence that changes in green and blue spaces through time impacted on common mental health disorders. However, time-aggregated exposure to green and blue spaces contrasting differences between people were associated with subsequent common mental health disorders. Similarly, our cross-sectional findings add to growing evidence that residential green and blue spaces and visits are associated with well-being benefits: Greater ambient greenness (+ 1 enhanced vegetation index) was associated with lower likelihood of subsequently seeking care for a common mental health disorder [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval, (CI) 0.80 to 0.81] and with well-being with a U-shaped relationship [Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; enhanced vegetation index beta (adjusted) -10.15, 95% CI -17.13 to -3.17; EVI2 beta (quadratic term; adj.) 12.49, 95% CI 3.02 to 21.97]. Those who used green and blue spaces for leisure reported better well-being, with diminishing extra benefit with increasing time (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: time outdoors (hours) beta 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24, time outdoors2 beta -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01) and had 4% lower odds of seeking help for common mental health disorders (AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99). Those in urban areas benefited most from greater access to green and blue spaces (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.89). Those in material deprivation benefited most from leisure time outdoors (until approximately four hours per week; Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: time outdoorsâ€…× in material deprivation: 1.41, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.43; time outdoors2 × in material deprivation -0.18, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.04) although well-being remained generally lower. Limitations: Longitudinal analyses were restricted by high baseline levels and limited temporal variation in ambient greenness in Wales. Changes in access to green and blue spaces could not be captured annually due to technical issues with national-level planning datasets. Future work: Further analyses could investigate mental health impacts in population subgroups potentially most sensitive to local changes in access to specific types of green and blue spaces. Deriving green and blue spaces changes from planning data is needed to overcome temporal uncertainties. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (Project number 16/07/07) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 10. Sarah Rodgers is part-funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast.

We investigated whether people who live near or visit green (parks, woodlands) and blue (riversides, beaches) spaces have fewer common mental health disorders (anxiety or depression), and better well-being. We considered whether changes in the amount of green and blue space around the home affected people's mental health. We assessed the availability of local green and blue spaces. Annual exposure and access to local green and blue spaces were extracted from planning and satellite data. We linked these data to anonymised health records of 2,801,483 adults registered with a general practice from 2008 to 2019, and to survey answers about leisure visits to natural environments and well-being. We found: people who lived in greener and bluer areas were less likely to seek help for a common mental health disorder than those in less green or blue areas, with those living in the most deprived areas benefiting the most people who used green and blue spaces for leisure, especially those with the greatest levels of deprivation, had better well-being and were less likely to seek help for common mental health disorders no evidence that changing amounts of green and blue space affected how likely people were to seek help for common mental health disorders; this may be because we found mostly small changes in green and blue space, and we may not have allowed enough time between moving home and recording mental health. We found evidence for relationships between green and blue space and mental health. However, some analyses were restricted due to lack of data on changes in green and blue spaces. An important finding was that people in deprived communities appear to benefit the most. Provision of green and blue spaces could be a strategy to improve the mental health of people living in disadvantaged areas.

Ambient greenness, access to local green spaces, and subsequent mental health: a 10-year longitudinal dynamic panel study of 2·3 million adults in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Living in greener areas, or close to green and blue spaces (GBS; eg, parks, lakes, or beaches), is associated with better mental health, but longitudinal evidence when GBS exposures precede outcomes is less available. We aimed to analyse the effect of living in or moving to areas with more green space or better access to GBS on subsequent adult mental health over time, while explicitly considering health inequalities. METHODS: A cohort of the people in Wales, UK (≥16 years; n=2 341 591) was constructed from electronic health record data sources from Jan 1, 2008 to Oct 31, 2019, comprising 19 141 896 person-years of follow-up. Household ambient greenness (Enhanced Vegetation Index [EVI]), access to GBS (counts, distance to nearest), and common mental health disorders (CMD, based on a validated algorithm combining current diagnoses or symptoms of anxiety or depression [treated or untreated in the preceding 1-year period], or treatment of historical diagnoses from before the current cohort [up to 8 years previously, to 2000], where diagnosis preceded treatment) were record-linked. Cumulative exposure values were created for each adult, censoring for CMD, migration out of Wales, death, or end of cohort. Exposure and CMD associations were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression, stratified by area-level deprivation. FINDINGS: After adjustment, exposure to greater ambient greenness over time (+0·1 increased EVI on a 0-1 scale) was associated with lower odds of subsequent CMD (adjusted odds ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·80-0·81), where CMD was based on a combination of current diagnoses or symptoms (treated or untreated in the preceding 1-year period), or treatments. Ten percentile points more access to GBS was associated with lower odds of a later CMD (0·93, 0·93-0·93). Every additional 360 m to the nearest GBS was associated with higher odds of CMD (1·05, 1·04-1·05). We found that positive effects of GBS on mental health appeared to be greater in more deprived quintiles. INTERPRETATION: Ambient exposure is associated with the greatest reduced risk of CMD, particularly for those who live in deprived communities. These findings support authorities responsible for GBS, who are attempting to engage planners and policy makers, to ensure GBS meets residents' needs. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Public Health Research programme.

The leaky pipeline of hearing care: primary to secondary care evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA).

OBJECTIVE: The proportions of older adults' transitions through acknowledging their hearing loss to getting access to treatment are unknown. This was examined using data from a nationally representative cohort in England. DESIGN: Patient and healthcare factors associated with referrals were examined cross-sectionally, through primary to secondary care. Non-report predictors identified using multiple logistic regression models. STUDY SAMPLE: 8529 adults with hearing data in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing Wave 7. RESULTS: Nearly 40% of those with acknowledged hearing loss did not tell a doctor or nurse (n = 857/2249). Women (OR 2.68, 95% CI 2.14-2.98), retirees (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.44), those with foreign education (OR 2.74, 95% CI 2.47-3.04), lower education (OR 2.86, 95% CI 2.58-3.18), smokers (OR 4.39, 95% CI 3.95-4.87), and heavy drinkers (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.58-1.85) were more likely to not report hearing loss. Of those who acknowledged and reported hearing difficulties, willingness to try hearing aid(s) was high (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Unacknowledged, or acknowledged but not reported hearing loss by individuals, and non-referrals by primary healthcare professionals, are barriers to accessing hearing healthcare. Future research should report hearing aid use as the proportion of individuals who acknowledge their hearing loss, to avoid an overestimation of the non-use of hearing aids within study samples.

Forty years on: a new national study of hearing in England and implications for global hearing health policy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to update the prevalence estimates of hearing loss in older adults in England using a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 years old and older. DESIGN: A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented. Hearing loss was defined as ≥35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz, as measured via Hearcheck in the better-hearing ear. STUDY SAMPLE: We compared the estimates based on the English census in 2015 to estimates from psychoacoustic hearing data available for 8,263 participants in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Wave 7 (2014-2015). RESULTS: Marked regional variability in hearing loss prevalence was revealed among participants with similar age profiles. The regional differences in hearing outcomes reached up to 13.53% in those belonging to the 71-80 years old group; the prevalence of hearing loss was 49.22% in the North East of England (95%CI 48.0-50.4), versus 35.69% in the South East (95%CI 34.8-36.50). CONCLUSION: A socio-spatial approach in planning sustainable models of hearing care based on the actual populations' needs and not on age demographics might offer a viable opportunity for healthier lives. Regular assessment of the extent and causality of the population's different audiological needs within the country is strongly supported.

Association Between Patient Factors and the Effectiveness of Wearable Trackers at Increasing the Number of Steps per Day Among Adults With Cardiometabolic Conditions: Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports the use of wearable trackers by people with cardiometabolic conditions. However, as the health benefits are small and confounded by heterogeneity, there remains uncertainty as to which patient groups are most helped by wearable trackers. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of wearable trackers in patients with cardiometabolic conditions to identify subgroups of patients who most benefited and to understand interventional differences. METHODS: We obtained individual participant data from randomized controlled trials of wearable trackers that were conducted before December 2020 and measured steps per day as the primary outcome in participants with cardiometabolic conditions including diabetes, overweight or obesity, and cardiovascular disease. We used statistical models to account for clustering of participants within trials and heterogeneity across trials to estimate mean differences with the 95% CI. RESULTS: Individual participant data were obtained from 9 of 25 eligible randomized controlled trials, which included 1481 of 3178 (47%) total participants. The wearable trackers revealed that over the median duration of 12 weeks, steps per day increased by 1656 (95% CI 918-2395), a significant change. Greater increases in steps per day from interventions using wearable trackers were observed in men (interaction coefficient -668, 95% CI -1157 to -180), patients in age categories over 50 years (50-59 years: interaction coefficient 1175, 95% CI 377-1973; 60-69 years: interaction coefficient 981, 95% CI 222-1740; 70-90 years: interaction coefficient 1060, 95% CI 200-1920), White patients (interaction coefficient 995, 95% CI 360-1631), and patients with fewer comorbidities (interaction coefficient -517, 95% CI -1188 to -11) compared to women, those aged below 50, non-White patients, and patients with multimorbidity. In terms of interventional differences, only face-to-face delivery of the tracker impacted the effectiveness of the interventions by increasing steps per day. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiometabolic conditions, interventions using wearable trackers to improve steps per day mostly benefited older White men without multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019143012; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=143012.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Methods: The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity. Results: Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients' needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts. Interpretation: Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: In 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258819.

The dynamic relationship between hearing loss, quality of life, socioeconomic position and depression and the impact of hearing aids: answers from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA).

PURPOSE: The adverse impact of hearing loss (HL) extends beyond auditory impairment and may affect the individuals' psychosocial wellbeing. We aimed to examine whether there exists a causal psychosocial pathway between HL and depression in later life, via socioeconomic factors and quality of life, and whether hearing aids usage alleviates depressive symptoms over time. METHODS: We examined the longitudinal relationship between HL and depressive symptoms (CES-D) applying dynamic cross-lagged mediation path models. We used the full dataset of participants aged 50-89 years (74,908 person-years), from all eight Waves of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Their quality of life (CASP-19) and their wealth were examined as the mediator and moderator of this relationship, respectively. Subgroup analyses investigated differences among those with hearing aids within different models of subjectively and objectively identified HL. All models were adjusted for age, sex, retirement status and social engagement. RESULTS: Socioeconomic position (SEP) influenced the strength of the relationship between HL and depression, which was stronger in the lowest versus the highest wealth quintiles. The use of hearing aids was beneficial for alleviating depressive symptoms. Those in the lowest wealth quintiles experienced a lower risk for depression after the use of hearing aids compared to those in the highest wealth quintiles. CONCLUSION: HL poses a substantial risk for depressive symptoms in older adults, especially those who experience socioeconomic inequalities. The early detection of HL and provision of hearing aids may not only promote better-hearing health but could also enhance the psychosocial wellbeing of older adults, particularly those in a lower SEP.

Conceptual Model of Hearing Health Inequalities (HHI Model): A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Hearing loss is a major health challenge that can have severe physical, social, cognitive, economic, and emotional consequences on people's quality of life. Currently, the modifiable factors linked to socioeconomic inequalities in hearing health are poorly understood. Therefore, an online database search (PubMed, Scopus, and Psych) was conducted to identify literature that relates hearing loss to health inequalities as a determinant or health outcome. A total of 53 studies were selected to thematically summarize the existing literature, using a critical interpretive synthesis method, where the subjectivity of the researcher is intimately involved in providing new insights with explanatory power. The evidence provided by the literature can be summarized under four key themes: (a) There might be a vicious cycle between hearing loss and socioeconomic inequalities and lifestyle factors, (b) socioeconomic position may interact with less healthy lifestyles, which are harmful to hearing ability, (c) increasing health literacy could improve the diagnosis and prognosis of hearing loss and prevent the adverse consequences of hearing loss on people's health, and (d) people with hearing loss might be vulnerable to receiving low-quality and less safe health care. This study uses elements from theoretical models of health inequalities to formulate a highly interpretive conceptual model for examining hearing health inequalities. This model depicts the specific mechanisms of hearing health and their evolution over time. There are many modifiable determinants of hearing loss, in several stages across an individual's life span; tackling socioeconomic inequalities throughout the life-course could improve the population's health, maximizing the opportunity for healthy aging.

Regional patterns and trends of hearing loss in England: evidence from the English longitudinal study of ageing (ELSA) and implications for health policy.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss (HL) is a significant public health concern globally and is estimated to affect over nine million people in England. The aim of this research was to explore the regional patterns and trends of HL in a representative longitudinal prospective cohort study of the English population aged 50 and over. METHODS: We used the full dataset (74,699 person-years) of self-reported hearing data from all eight Waves of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) (2002-2017). We examined the geographical identifiers of the participants at the Government Office Region (GOR) level and the geographically based Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The primary outcome measure was self-reported HL; it consisted of a merged category of people who rated their hearing as fair or poor on a five-point Likert scale (excellent, very good, good, fair or poor) or responded positively when asked whether they find it difficult to follow a conversation if there is background noise (e.g. noise from a TV, a radio or children playing). RESULTS: A marked elevation in HL prevalence (10.2%) independent of the age of the participants was observed in England in 2002-2017. The mean HL prevalence increased from 38.50 (95%CI 37.37-39.14) in Wave 1 to 48.66 (95%CI 47.11-49.54) in Wave 8. We identified three critical patterns of findings concerning regional trends: the highest HL prevalence among samples with equal means of age was observed in GORs with the highest prevalence of participants in the most deprived (IMD) quintile, in routine or manual occupations and misusing alcohol. The adjusted HL predictions at the means (APMs) showed marked regional variability and hearing health inequalities between Northern and Southern England that were previously unknown. CONCLUSIONS: A sociospatial approach is crucial for planning sustainable models of hearing care based on actual needs and reducing hearing health inequalities. The Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) currently responsible for the NHS audiology services in England should not consider HL an inevitable accompaniment of older age; instead, they should incorporate socio-economic factors and modifiable lifestyle behaviours for HL within their spatial patterning in England.

Comparison of Self-reported Measures of Hearing With an Objective Audiometric Measure in Adults in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

Importance: An effective and sustainable hearing loss (HL) screening strategy for the early detection of and intervention for HL in older adults is needed. Objectives: To examine the concordance of self-reported measures of hearing difficulty with objective hearing data and the factors associated with the potential discordances among these measures across different population subgroups of a representative sample of people 50 years and older in England. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a large, population-based, prospective cohort study that provides a unique resource for exploring issues associated with aging in England in the 21st century. The full analytic cohort was composed of 9666 individuals participating in the ELSA wave 7, which collected information from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015. This study further analyzed a sample of 8529 adults 50 to 89 years of age who had an assessment of their hearing by self-reported measures, and consented to assessment by a qualified nurse via a hearing screening device, and did not have an ear infection or a cochlear implant. Bivariate analyses were performed from July 1 to December 30, 2018, and multivariate analysis from January 1 to June 30, 2019. Multiple logistic regression models examined factors associated with misclassification of hearing difficulties across several categories among those with objectively identified HL. Exposures: The study examined whether age, marital status, retirement status, indicators of socioeconomic position, and lifestyle factors (such as body mass index, physical activity, and tobacco and alcohol consumption) were associated with the concordance between self-reported hearing problems and manual audiometry among older adults. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported hearing measures, including hearing in background noise, compared with objective audiometric assessments. Results: A total of 9666 study participants (5368 female [55.5%]; mean [SD] age, 67.4 [14.4] years) provided responses regarding their hearing difficulties, hearing in noise, quality of care in hearing, and hearing aid recommendation in ELSA wave 7. Within the cohort, 684 individuals (30.2%) with objectively measured HL greater than 35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz went undetected by the self-report measure, whereas the new constructed categories for moderate and moderately severe or severe HL resulted in 9.3% increased sensitivity. Factors associated with misreporting hearing difficulties (while they had objectively measured HL >35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz, in the better-hearing ear) were as follows: female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.18-3.28), no educational qualifications (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-2.55), routine or manual occupation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-2.61), tobacco consumption (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.90), alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11-2.34), and lack of moderate physical activity (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.42). Age was largely associated with misreporting of moderately severe to severe HL; the odds were 5.75 (95% CI, 1.17-8.13) higher for those 65 to 74 years of age and 7.08 (95% CI, 1.41-9.30) higher for those 75 to 89 years of age to not report their hearing difficulties compared with those 50 to 64 years of age. In addition, socioeconomic indicators, such as educational level (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.63-6.01) and occupation (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.78-5.40), along with lifestyle factors, such as smoking (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-2.48) and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.67-5.12), were factors associated with misreporting moderately severe or severe HL. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of a screening measure for audiometric testing and a self-report measure is essential for accurately identifying older people with HL. The results of this study should be considered by HL researchers who analyze self-reported hearing data as a surrogate measurement of audiometric hearing to identify bias in their observed analytic research results.

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

OBJECTIVES: Aims were (1) to examine whether socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with hearing loss (HL) among older adults in England and (2) whether major modifiable lifestyle factors (high body mass index, physical inactivity, tobacco consumption and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines) are associated with HL after controlling for non-modifiable demographic factors and SEP. SETTING: We used data from the wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which is a longitudinal household survey dataset of a representative sample of people aged 50 and older. PARTICIPANTS: The final analytical sample was 8529 participants aged 50-89 that gave consent to have their hearing acuity objectively measured by a screening audiometry device and did not have any ear infection. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: HL defined as >35 dBHL at 3.0 kHz (better-hearing ear). Those with HL were further subdivided into two categories depending on the number of tones heard at 3.0 kHz. RESULTS: HL was identified in 32.1% of men and 22.3% of women aged 50-89. Those in a lower SEP were up to two times more likely to have HL; the adjusted odds of HL were higher for those with no qualifications versus those with a degree/higher education (men: OR 1.87, 95%CI 1.47 to 2.38, women: OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.95), those in routine/manual occupations versus those in managerial/professional occupations (men: OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.43 to 2.63, women: OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.54), and those in the lowest versus the highest income and wealth quintiles (men: OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.44, women: OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.85 to 2.16, and men: OR1.72, 95%CI 1.26 to 2.35, women: OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.58, respectively). All regression models showed that socioeconomic and the modifiable lifestyle factors were strongly associated with HL after controlling for age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors are associated with HL among older adults as strongly as core demographic risk factors, such as age and gender. Socioeconomic inequalities and modifiable lifestyle behaviours need to be targeted by the health policy strategies, as an important step in designing interventions for individuals that face hearing health inequalities.

Determinants of health- related quality of life (HRQoL) among deaf and hard of hearing adults in Greece: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is an important public health issue, since it has a very negative impact on peoples' lives, irrespective of the age at which it develops. However, globally there is a noticeable lack of epidemiological data for health outcomes for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. In Greece, people with hearing disabilities are systematically not included in health policy and planning processes, despite there being a marked tendency for global efforts aimed at improving their quality of life. METHODS: The sample consisted of 140 adults with hearing loss (86 d/Deaf and 54 hard of hearing) and 97 normal hearing as the control group. We run data collection from April to June 2015, using the Greek version of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2). Socio-demographic and characteristics about non-medical determinants of health (tobacco and alcohol consumption levels, BMI and physical activity).were also collected and were analysed as possible determinants. Data analysis included bivariate and multivariate analyses such as linear regression models. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses identified that in all the SF-36v2 dimensions, the scores among deaf people were lower than those with normal hearing. Determinants included the hearing loss degree, educational level, body mass index, levels of physical activity, and alcohol consumption levels, while the variable "number of family members per household" was inversely associated with physical health summary scale score. CONCLUSIONS: Improving knowledge of the health-related determinants that affect quality of life for the population with hearing loss is an important step in designing targeted services and interventions. In light of these findings, a special effort must be made to ensure the wellbeing of this population.