New Brunswick HEARS: outcomes of a community-delivered hearing intervention adapted for older adults in Atlantic Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To assess acceptability and benefit of a community-based hearing intervention delivered at no cost to lower-income older adults with untreated hearing loss in New Brunswick, Canada. DESIGN: Mixed method pre-post intervention study investigating aspects of communication function and social support at baseline and three months post-intervention. STUDY SAMPLE: 124 of 175 independent-living older adults screened at the study site and in local community centres in low-income neighbourhoods were recruited into the study. RESULTS: In 70 (56.5%) participants self-identified as female and 54 (43.5%) as male, with mean age of 74.5 years, mean effect sizes measured from baseline to 3-months post-intervention were 0.99 (large) for HHIE-S, 0.58 (medium) for DSSI, and 1.02 (large) for LSEQ indicating significant improvement in self-perceived communication function, social support and listening self-efficacy, respectively. CONCLUSION: The HEARS program is feasible to implement, despite Covid-19 pandemic related challenges, highly acceptable to participants, and associated with a range of benefits that include improved communication function, self-efficacy and social support. The success of HEARS in a new population in a second Canadian province indicates its adaptability and suitability for scaling to extend the reach of hearing services for older adults who may not otherwise access care.

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use Among Persons Living With Dementia in the US.

Importance: Dementia and hearing loss are prevalent and represent public health priorities, but little is known about the prevalence of hearing loss among persons living with dementia at a population level. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use among a nationally representative sample of persons living with dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from Medicare beneficiaries who participated in round 11 of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The analytic sample included participants who had complete audiometric data and a dementia classification, and survey weights were applied to yield nationally representative estimates. Data were collected from June to November 2021, and analyzed from October 12, 2023, to February 27, 2024. Exposures: Audiometric measures of hearing loss and self-reported hearing aid use. Main Outcomes and Measures: National prevalence estimates of possible and probable dementia and hearing loss were estimated by applying NHATS survey weights of sex and age to the population aged 71 years or older based on the US Census Bureau's 2020 American Community Survey data. Results: The analytic sample comprised 2613 NHATS participants (74.6% aged 71-79 years and 25.4% aged ≥80 years; 52.9% female). Overall prevalence of hearing loss among participants with dementia was estimated at 79.4% (95% CI, 72.1%-85.3%). The prevalence of hearing loss increased with age, from 61.1% (95% CI, 37.7%-80.2%) among participants aged 71 to 74 years to 94.2% (95% CI, 88.8%-97.0%) among those aged 85 years or older. Among participants with hearing loss, 21.7% (95% CI, 16.2%-28.3%) reported hearing aid use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the findings suggest that hearing loss is highly prevalent among individuals with dementia, with a low prevalence of hearing aid use. These findings reveal a potential opportunity for intervention.

Hearing loss and cognitive decline: Prioritizing equity in a world in which hearing health matters.

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) and age-related hearing loss are the intersection of two major public health challenges. With age as the primary risk factor for both disease processes, the burden of ADRDs and age-related hearing loss is growing, and each field maintains significant barriers to broadscale identification and management that is affordable and accessible. With the disproportionate burden of ADRDs among racial and ethnic minority older adults and existing disparities within hearing care, both areas face challenges in achieving equitable access and outcomes across diverse populations. The publication of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) trial in July 2023 marked a significant moment in the fields of brain and hearing health. The ACHIEVE trial was the first randomized controlled trial to examine whether providing hearing intervention, specifically provision of hearing aids, compared to an education control, would reduce cognitive changes over 3 years. The participants most at risk for cognitive decline, with lower education, lower income, more likely to identify as Black, and have more cardiovascular risk factors, were the participants who benefited most from the hearing intervention and are also the least likely to be represented in research and the least likely to obtain hearing care. With growing evidence of the interconnection between cognitive and sensory health, we have an opportunity to prioritize equity, from purposeful inclusion of diverse participants in trials to influencing the emerging market of over-the-counter hearing aids to supporting expanded models of hearing care that reach those who have traditionally gone unserved. No longer can hearing go unrecognized by clinicians, researchers, and advocates for brain health. At the same time, the fields of brain and hearing health must center equity if we are going to meet the needs of diverse older adults in a world in which hearing health matters.

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.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in low- and middle-income countries or resource-limited settings: A systematic scoping review.

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.

Association Between Adult-Onset Hearing Loss and Income: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss has been shown to be associated with both negative health outcomes and low socioeconomic position, including lower income. Despite this, a thorough review of the existing literature on this relationship has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate available literature on the possible association between income and adult-onset hearing loss. DESIGN: A search was conducted in eight databases for all relevant literature using terms focused on hearing loss and income. Studies reporting the presence or absence of an association between income and hearing loss, full-text English-language access, and a predominantly adult population (≥18 years old) were eligible. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: The initial literature search yielded 2994 references with three additional sources added through citation searching. After duplicate removal, 2355 articles underwent title and abstract screening. This yielded 161 articles eligible for full-text review resulting in 46 articles that were included in qualitative synthesis. Of the included studies, 41 of 46 articles found an association between income and adult-onset hearing loss. Due to heterogeneity among study designs, a meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature consistently supports an association between income and adult-onset hearing loss but is limited entirely to cross-sectional studies with the directionality remaining unknown. An aging population and the negative health outcomes associated with hearing loss, emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing the role of social determinants of health in the prevention and management of hearing loss.

Patulous Eustachian Tube Dysfunction Symptoms Following Balloon Dilation.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians increasingly perform balloon dilation of the Eustachian tube (BDET) to treat obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (OETD) refractory to medical management. Reported complications have been limited and include patulous Eustachian tube dysfunction (PETD). This multicenter study investigates the incidence of PETD and associated factors. METHODS: Consecutive patients at three academic centers undergoing BDET (January 2014-November 2019) for OETD refractory to medical therapy were included. PETD was diagnosed by patient-reported symptoms of autophony of voice and/or breathing. Associated factors studied include age, sex, comorbidities, balloon size, duration of inflation, repeat BDET, and adjunctive procedures. RESULTS: BDET procedures (n = 295 Eustachian tubes) were performed on 182 patients. Mean age was 38.4 years (SD 21.0; range 7-78) and 41.2% were female. Twenty cases of PETD (6.8% of procedures; 9.3% of patients) occurred following BDET. Risk of PETD did not vary by institution, comorbidities, or adjunctive procedure. Age ≤18 years (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24, 8.54; p = 0.02), repeat BDET (RR = 3.26; 95% CI: 2.15, 4.96; p < 0.001), and severe preoperative Eustachian tube inflammation (RR = 2.83; 95% CI: 1.10, 7.28; p = 0.03) were associated with increased risk of developing PETD in the multivariable model. Most symptoms were reported as mild or intermittent. CONCLUSION: BDET caused PETD symptoms in approximately 7% of dilated Eustachian tubes in this study with increased risk for younger patients and those with severe inflammation or undergoing repeat dilations. Although most cases were self-limited, symptoms can persist. Awareness of risk factors may aid clinicians in limiting this complication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:3152-3157, 2023.

Sex and Race Representation in Temporal Bone Histopathology Studies in the United States: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The author's objective was to evaluate sex and race representation in temporal bone histopathology studies. DESIGN: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies written in English examining temporal bone histopathology specimens from U.S.-based institutions from January 1, 1947, to September 1, 2021. Two authors then performed "snowballing" by reviewing references from the initial search and included the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. For each study, the following information was collected: publication details, study design, funding, institution from where temporal bone specimens were procured, number of study specimens, and donor demographical information. RESULTS: The authors found that out of 300 studies, 166 (55%) report sex while only 15 (5%) reported race information. Over the past 70 years, the ratio of studies reporting sex to those that do not has increased from 1.00 to 2.19 and the number of female temporal bone histopathology subjects relative to male has increased from 0.67 to 0.75. Over 90% of studies that do report this information feature participant racial compositions that do not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population. CONCLUSIONS: Studies of temporal bone histopathology often do not report participant sex or race. The reporting of participant sex and the inclusion of specimens from female donors have both increased over time. However, temporal bone histopathology study cohorts are not representative of the racial diversity of the U.S. population. The otolaryngology community must strive to build temporal bone histopathology libraries that are representative of the diverse U.S. population.

Effect of a Community Health Worker-Delivered Personal Sound Amplification Device on Self-Perceived Communication Function in Older Adults With Hearing Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Age-related hearing loss that impairs daily communication is associated with adverse health outcomes, but use of hearing aids by older adults is low and disparities exist. Objective: To test whether an affordable, accessible hearing care intervention, delivered by community health workers using over-the-counter hearing technology, could improve self-perceived communication function among older adults with hearing loss compared with a wait-list control. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label randomized clinical trial conducted between April 2018 and October 2019 with 3-month data collection completed in June 2020. The trial took place at 13 community sites, including affordable independent housing complexes (n = 10), senior centers (n = 2), and an older adult social club (n = 1) in Baltimore, Maryland. A total of 151 participants aged 60 years or older with hearing loss were randomized. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a community health worker-delivered hearing care intervention (n = 78) or to a wait-list control group (n = 73). The 2-hour intervention consisted of fitting a low-cost amplification device and instruction. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in self-perceived communication function (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version [HHIE-S]; score range, 0-40; higher scores indicate poorer function) from baseline to 3 months postrandomization. The average treatment effect was estimated using the doubly robust weighted least squares estimator, which uses an outcome regression model weighted by the inverse probability of attrition to account for baseline covariate imbalance and missing data. Results: Among 151 participants randomized (mean age, 76.7 [SD, 8.0] years; 101 [67.8%] women; 65 [43%] self-identified as African American; 96 [63.6%] with low income [<$25 000 annual household income]), 136 (90.1%) completed 3-month follow-up for the primary outcome. In the intervention group, 90.5% completed the intervention session and reported at least 1 hour of daily amplification use at 3 months postrandomization. Mean scores for the HHIE-S were 21.7 (SD, 9.4) at baseline and 7.9 (SD, 9.2) at 3 months (change of -13.2 [SD, 10.3]) in the intervention group, and 20.1 (SD, 10.1) at baseline and 21 (SD, 9.1) at 3 months (change of 0.6 [SD, 7.1]) in the control group. Self-perceived communication function significantly improved in the intervention group compared with the control group, with an estimated average treatment effect of the intervention of a -12.98-point HHIE-S change (95% CI, -15.51 to -10.42). No study-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with hearing loss, a community health worker-delivered personal sound amplification device intervention, compared with a wait-list control, significantly improved self-perceived communication function at 3 months. Findings are limited by the absence of a sham control, and further research is needed to understand effectiveness compared with other types of care delivery models and amplification devices. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442296.

Socioeconomic position and hearing loss: current understanding and recent advances.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe recent literature examining the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing loss, including the impact of hearing loss on several socioeconomic outcomes over the life course. Additionally, we highlight current policy advances in recent years and review alternative models of hearing care that aim to address disparities related to SEP and hearing healthcare. RECENT FINDINGS: Applying a social epidemiologic lens to hearing health gives insight into the role of material and social contexts in understanding and improving hearing health outcomes. Recent studies investigating the intersection of SEP and hearing health highlight the disparities that exist for individuals with low SEP as well as the influence of hearing loss on SEP. Individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be unemployed, have lower educational attainment, lower income, and are less likely to use hearing aids and access hearing care. Legislation addressing cost and access to hearing care as well as transforming the current landscape of hearing care, is essential to creating equitable care for individuals, especially older adults, with low SEP. SUMMARY: With the expected rise in prevalence of hearing loss over the next 40 years, hearing care that is affordable and accessible is a public health priority. As hearing loss is associated with negative outcomes for individuals with low SEP, advances in legislation and care delivery models are necessary in order to include populations traditionally unserved by current hearing healthcare.

Foundational Approaches to Advancing Hearing Health Equity: A Primer in Social Epidemiology.

Hearing health is inextricably linked to factors beyond biology. Social, demographic, environmental, geographic, and historical influences affect hearing health, but these factors are often unmeasured within traditional biological, clinical, and epidemiological studies of hearing health. With increasing recognition of hearing health over the life course as a public health priority, there is also a growing understanding of existing hearing health inequities at the individual, community, national, and global levels. To make progress in addressing these inequities, public health disciplines, such as social epidemiology, can provide valuable frameworks. With a focus on integrating the biological and functional with social and structural factors influencing health, social epidemiology provides key concepts and approaches for filling existing research and practice gaps. In this review, we introduce the discipline of social epidemiology and its associated concepts to inspire greater cross-disciplinary collaboration for the ultimate goal of advancing hearing health equity.

Expanding Clinical Trials Designs to Extend Equitable Hearing Care.

Clinical trials are critically important to translate scientific innovations into clinical practice. Hearing healthcare depends on this translational approach to improve outcomes and quality of life. Across the spectrum of healthcare, there is a lack of diverse participation in clinical trials, a failure to recruit and retain underrepresented and underserved populations, and an absence of rigorous dissemination and implementation of novel research to broader populations. The field of hearing healthcare research would benefit from expanding the types and designs of clinical trials that extend hearing healthcare and novel interventions to diverse populations, as well as emphasizing trials that evaluate factors influencing how that care can be delivered effectively. This article explores the following: (1) the role, value, and design types of clinical trials (randomized controlled, cluster randomized, stepped wedge, and mixed methods) to address health equity; (2) the importance of integrating community and stakeholder involvement; and (3) dissemination and implementation frameworks and designs for clinical trials (hybrid trial designs). By adopting a broader range of clinical trial designs, hearing healthcare researchers may be able to extend scientific discoveries to a more diverse population.

Community-Based Participatory Research and Human-Centered Design Principles to Advance Hearing Health Equity.

OBJECTIVES: Inclusive and equitable research is an ethical imperative. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) as well as human-centered design are approaches that center partnership between community members and academic researchers. Together, academic-community research teams iteratively study community priorities, collaboratively develop ethical study designs, and co-create innovations that are accessible and meaningful to the community partners while advancing science. The foundation of the CBPR approach is reliant on its core principles of equity, colearning, shared power in decision-making, reciprocity, and mutual benefit. While the CBPR approach has been used extensively in public health and other areas of healthcare research, the approach is relatively new to audiology, otolaryngology, and hearing health research. The purpose of the present article is to advance an understanding of the CBPR approach, along with principles from human-centered design, in the context of research aimed to advance equity and access in hearing healthcare. DESIGN: The literature is reviewed to provide an introduction for auditory scientists to the CBPR approach and human-centered design, including discussion of the underlying principles of CBPR and where it fits along a community-engaged continuum, theoretical and evaluation frameworks, as well as applications within auditory research. RESULTS: Recent applications of CBPR have been framed broadly within the theoretical positions of the socioecological model for a systems-level approach to community-engaged research and the Health Services Utilization model within health services and disparities research using CBPR. Utilizing human-centered design strategies can work in tandem with a CBPR approach to engage a wide range of people in the research process and move toward the development of innovative yet feasible solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging the principles of CBPR is an intricate and dynamic process, may not be a fit for some topics, some researchers' skillsets, and may be beyond some projects' resources. When implemented skillfully and authentically, CBPR can be of benefit by elevating and empowering community voices and cultural perspectives historically marginalized in society and underrepresented within research. With a focus on health equity, this review of CBPR in the study of hearing healthcare emphasizes how this approach to research can help to advance inclusion, diversity, and access to innovation.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: We examined individual-level factors associated with hearing aid use by race and ethnicity in a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (cycles 2016-2018) for 10,301 older adults with hearing loss and hearing aid use as the primary outcome. Covariates included education, income, urban residence, chronic conditions, functional limitations, and Medicaid eligibility. Multivariable logistic regression stratified by race and ethnicity was used to identify factors associated with hearing aid use. RESULTS: Factors associated with hearing aid use included higher education among White (OR = 1.35, 95%CI:1.16, 1.58), Black (OR = 1.76, 95%CI:1.02, 3.05), and Hispanic (OR = 1.77, 95%CI:1.17, 2.68) beneficiaries. Urban residence was associated with hearing aid use for Black participants (OR = 3.06, 95%CI:1.17, 8.03) and Medicaid eligibility for Hispanic participants (OR = 1.58, 95%CI:0.97, 2.59), although the confidence interval included the null hypothesis. DISCUSSION: ndividual-level factors associated with hearing aid use differed by race and ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries.

Individual Life-Course Socioeconomic Position and Hearing Aid Use in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: To measure the association between individual life-course socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing aid use, we examined childhood and adulthood socioeconomic variables collected at the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study baseline visit (1987-1989)/Life Course Socioeconomic Status study (2001-2002) and hearing aid use data collected at visit 6 (2016-2017). METHODS: ARIC is a prospective cohort study of older adults (45-64 years) recruited from 4 U.S. communities. This analysis included a subset of 2 470 participants with hearing loss at visit 6 (≥25 decibels hearing level [dB HL] better-ear) with complete hearing aid use data. Childhood SEP variables included parental education, parental occupation, and parental home ownership. Young and older adulthood SEP variables included income, education, occupation, and home ownership. Each life epoch was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 5 and then summed to calculate the individual cumulative SEP score. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the association between individual cumulative SEP and hearing aid use. Missing SEP scores were imputed for participants with incomplete socioeconomic data. RESULTS: Of the 2 470 participants in the analytic cohort (median [interquartile interval] age 79.9 [76.7-84.0], 1 330 [53.8%] women, 450 [18.2%] Black), 685 (27.7%) participants reported hearing aid use. Higher cumulative SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.14), and slightly stronger for childhood (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20) than older adulthood SEP score (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based cohort of older adults with hearing loss, higher individual life-course SEP was positively associated with hearing aid use.

Prevalence of Tympanic Membrane Perforations Among Adolescents, Adults, and Older Adults in the United States.

Tympanic membrane (TM) perforations can occur at any age, but limited population-level data are available. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence and population estimates for TM perforations among individuals ≥12 years old in the United States. Overall, TM perforations have a prevalence of 2.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.6%), corresponding to 5.8 million Americans. Across the life course, older adults have the highest prevalence of TM perforations at 6.1% (95% CI, 4.7%-7.6%), corresponding to nearly 3 million Americans, as opposed to a prevalence of 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.9%) in adolescents, which equates to 0.2 million Americans. Males and females have a similar prevalence at 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.0%) among males and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.6%) among females. These prevalence and population estimates provide the first US-based population estimates of the burden of TM perforations over the life course.

Sensory Impairment and the Odds of Adverse Consequences of Unmet Needs for Care Among Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Vision and hearing impairments are highly prevalent conditions among older adults, and well-established links exist between sensory impairment and household, mobility, and self-care activity limitations. However, studies examining the impact of unmet long-term services and supports (LTSS) needs have not considered the role of vision and hearing impairment on the risk of experiencing adverse consequences, including wetting or soiling oneself. METHOD: Using Rounds 1 and 5 of the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative survey of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older, we examine the association of vision and hearing impairment on the odds of experiencing an adverse consequence while accounting for other sociodemographic and health status factors. RESULTS: Among a weighted population of 49,770,947 community-living older adults with limitations in household, mobility, or self-care activities, 20.1% (95% CI: 19.2-21.0) experienced an adverse consequence as a result of unmet LTSS needs. In the fully adjusted regression, individuals with vision or hearing impairment had 96% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.64-2.34) and 43% increased odds (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.24-1.65), respectively, of experiencing any adverse consequence. Hearing impairment was associated with higher odds of household or self-care adverse consequences, while vision impairment was associated with higher odds of mobility or self-care adverse consequences. DISCUSSION: Sensory impairment may increase the risk for adverse consequences for older adults with unmet LTSS needs. Activities that support older adults living safely in the community should consider the role of sensory impairment and how to address the unique needs of those with hearing or vision impairment.

International Practice Recommendations for the Recognition and Management of Hearing and Vision Impairment in People with Dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing, vision, and cognitive impairment commonly co-occur in older people. However, the rate of recognition and appropriate management of combined hearing and vision impairment in people with dementia impairment is low. The aim of this work was to codevelop internationally relevant, multidisciplinary practice recommendations for professionals involved in the diagnosis, care, and management of older people with these concurrent conditions. METHODS: We applied consensus methods with professional and lay expert stakeholders, using an adapted version of the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. The development involved 4 phases and included: (1) collating existing evidence, (2) filling the gaps in evidence, (3) prioritising evidence, and (4) refining the final list of recommendations. Each phase encompassed various methodologies including a review of existing guidelines within the 3 clinical domains, systematic reviews, qualitative studies, a clinical professional consortium, surveys, and consensus meetings with interdisciplinary domain experts. RESULTS: The task force evaluated an initial list of 26 recommendations, ranking them in the order of priority. A consensus was reached on 15 recommendations, which are classified into 6 domains of "awareness and knowledge," "recognition and detection," "evaluation," "management," "support," and "services and policies." Pragmatic options for implementation for each domain were then developed. CONCLUSION: This is the first set of international, interdisciplinary practice recommendations that will guide the development of multidisciplinary services and policy to improve the lives of people with dementia and hearing and vision impairment.