Development, assessment, and monitoring of audiologic treatment fidelity in the aging and cognitive health evaluation in elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating hearing interventions under-utilise and under-report treatment fidelity planning, implementation, and assessment. This represents a critical gap in the field that has the potential to impede advancements in the successful dissemination and implementation of interventions. Thus, our objective was to describe treatment fidelity planning and implementation for hearing intervention in the multi-site Ageing and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Our treatment fidelity plan was based on a framework defined by the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC), and included strategies to enhance study design, provider training, and treatment delivery, receipt, and enactment. STUDY SAMPLE: To assess the fidelity of the ACHIEVE hearing intervention, we distributed a checklist containing criteria from each NIH BCC core treatment fidelity category to nine raters. RESULTS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan satisfied 96% of NIH BCC criteria. Our assessment suggested a need for including clear, objective definitions of provider characteristics and non-treatment aspects of intervention delivery in future fidelity plans. CONCLUSIONS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan can serve as a framework for the application of NIH BCC fidelity strategies for future studies and enhance the ability of researchers to reliably implement evidence-based interventions.

An examination of electrophysiological release from masking in young and older adults.

The effect of age on release from masking (RFM) was examined using cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs). Two speech-in-noise paradigms [i.e., fixed speech with varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and fixed noise with varying speech levels], similar to those used in behavioral measures of RFM, were employed with competing continuous and interrupted noises. Young and older normal-hearing adults participated (N = 36). Cortical responses were evoked in the fixed speech paradigm at SNRs of -10, 0, and 10 dB. In the fixed noise paradigm, the CAEP SNR threshold was determined in both noises as the lowest SNR that yielded a measurable response. RFM was demonstrated in the fixed speech paradigm with a significant amount of missing responses, longer P1 and N1 latencies, and smaller N1 response amplitudes in continuous noise at the poorest -10 dB SNR. In the fixed noise paradigm, RFM was demonstrated with significantly lower CAEP SNR thresholds in interrupted noise. Older participants demonstrated significantly longer P2 latencies and reduced P1 and N1 amplitudes. There was no evidence of a group difference in RFM in either paradigm.

Effect of presentation level and age on release from masking: Behavioral measures.

The effect of presentation level and age on release from masking (RFM) was examined. Two speech-in-noise paradigms [i.e., fixed speech with varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and fixed noise with varying speech levels] were employed with competing continuous and interrupted noises. Young and older normal-hearing adults participated (N = 36). Word recognition was assessed at three presentation levels (i.e., 20, 30, and 40 dB sensation level) in SNRs of -10, 0, and 10 dB. Reception thresholds for sentences (RTSs) were determined at three presentation levels (i.e., 55, 65, and 75 dB sound pressure level). RTS SNRs were determined in both noises. RFM was computed by subtracting word recognition scores in continuous noise from interrupted noise and RTS SNRs in interrupted noise from continuous noise. Significant effects of presentation level, group, and SNR were seen with word recognition performance. RFM increased with increasing sensation level, was greater in younger adults, and was superior at -10 dB SNR. With RTS SNRs, significant effects of presentation level and group were found. The findings support the notion that RFM is a level dependent auditory temporal resolution phenomenon and older listeners display a deficit relative to younger listeners.

Evidence of a speech evoked electrophysiological release from masking in noise.

In this study, a release from masking (RFM) was sought with cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) elicited by speech (/da/) in competing continuous and interrupted noises. Two paradigms (i.e., fixed speech with varying signal-to-noise ratios and fixed noise with varying speech levels) were employed. Shorter latencies and larger amplitudes were observed in interrupted versus continuous noise at equivalent signal-to-noise ratios. With fixed speech presentation, P1-N1-P2 latencies were prolonged and peak N1 and P2 amplitudes decreased and more so with continuous noise. CAEP thresholds were lower in interrupted noise. This is the first demonstration of RFM with CAEPs to speech.

Effect of hearing intervention on communicative function: A secondary analysis of the ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) Study was designed to determine the effects of a best-practice hearing intervention on cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults. Here, we conducted a secondary analysis of the ACHIEVE Study to investigate the effect of hearing intervention on self-reported communicative function. METHODS: The ACHIEVE Study is a parallel-group, unmasked, randomized controlled trial of adults aged 70-84 years with untreated mild-to-moderate hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a hearing intervention (audiological counseling and provision of hearing aids) or a control intervention of health education (individual sessions with a health educator covering topics on chronic disease prevention) and followed semiannually for 3 years. Self-reported communicative function was measured with the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Elderly Screening version (HHIE-S, range 0-40, higher scores indicate greater impairment). Effect of hearing intervention versus control on HHIE-S was analyzed through an intention-to-treat model controlling for known covariates. RESULTS: HHIE-S improved after 6-months with hearing intervention compared to control, and continued to be better through 3-year follow-up. We estimated a difference of -8.9 (95% CI: -10.4, -7.5) points between intervention and control groups in change in HHIE-S score from baseline to 6 months, -9.3 (95% CI: -10.8, -7.9) to Year 1, -8.4 (95% CI: -9.8, -6.9) to Year 2, and - 9.5 (95% CI: -11.0, -8.0) to Year 3. Other prespecified sensitivity analyses that varied analytical parameters did not change the observed results. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing intervention improved self-reported communicative function compared to a control intervention within 6 months and with effects sustained through 3 years. These findings suggest that clinical recommendations for older adults with hearing loss should encourage hearing intervention that could benefit communicative function and potentially have positive downstream effects on other aspects of health.

Effect of Hearing Intervention Versus Health Education Control on Fatigue: A Secondary Analysis of the ACHIEVE Study.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common complaint among older adults with hearing loss. The impact of addressing hearing loss on fatigue symptoms has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. In a secondary analysis of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study, we investigated the effect of hearing intervention versus health education control on 3-year change in fatigue in community-dwelling older adults with hearing loss. METHODS: Participants aged 70-84 years old with untreated hearing loss recruited across 4 study sites in the United States (Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Washington County, Maryland) were randomized (1:1) to hearing intervention or health education control and followed for 3 years. Three-year change in fatigue symptoms was measured by 2 instruments (RAND-36 and PROMIS). We estimated the intervention effect as the difference in the 3-year change in fatigue between intervention and control groups using a linear mixed-effects model under the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Participants (n = 977) had a mean age (SD) of 76.8 (4.0) years, were 53.5% female and 87.8% White. Over 3 years, a beneficial effect of the hearing intervention versus health education control on fatigue was observed using the RAND-fatigue score (ß = -0.12 [95% CI: -0.22, -0.02]). Estimates also suggested beneficial effect of hearing intervention on fatigue when measured by the PROMIS-fatigue score (ß = -0.32 [95% CI: -1.15, 0.51]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that hearing intervention may reduce fatigue over 3 years among older adults with hearing loss.

Recruitment and baseline data of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study: A randomized trial of a hearing loss intervention for reducing cognitive decline.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best-practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results. METHODS: Multiple strategies were used to recruit community-dwelling 70-84-year-old participants with adult-onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in-person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility. RESULTS: Over a 24-month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in-person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site. DISCUSSION: The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well-established observational study. Highlights: The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in-person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications.

Description of the Baseline Audiologic Characteristics of the Participants Enrolled in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study.

PURPOSE: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a randomized clinical trial designed to determine the effects of a best-practice hearing intervention versus a successful aging health education control intervention on cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults with untreated mild-to-moderate hearing loss. We describe the baseline audiologic characteristics of the ACHIEVE participants. METHOD: Participants aged 70-84 years (N = 977; Mage = 76.8) were enrolled at four U.S. sites through two recruitment routes: (a) an ongoing longitudinal study and (b) de novo through the community. Participants underwent diagnostic evaluation including otoscopy, tympanometry, pure-tone and speech audiometry, speech-in-noise testing, and provided self-reported hearing abilities. Baseline characteristics are reported as frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables or medians (interquartiles, Q1-Q3) for continuous variables. Between-groups comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Spearman correlations assessed relationships between measured hearing function and self-reported hearing handicap. RESULTS: The median four-frequency pure-tone average of the better ear was 39 dB HL, and the median speech-in-noise performance was a 6-dB SNR loss, indicating mild speech-in-noise difficulty. No clinically meaningful differences were found across sites. Significant differences in subjective measures were found for recruitment route. Expected correlations between hearing measurements and self-reported handicap were found. CONCLUSIONS: The extensive baseline audiologic characteristics reported here will inform future analyses examining associations between hearing loss and cognitive decline. The final ACHIEVE data set will be publicly available for use among the scientific community. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24756948.

Accuracy of self- and proxy-rated hearing among older adults with and without cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults with cognitive impairment and may exacerbate neuropsychiatric symptoms and affect interactions with others. Although audiometry is the gold standard for measuring hearing, it is not always used in research or clinical settings focused on the care of individuals with cognitive impairment. Subjective assessments of hearing, both self- and proxy-rated, are widespread but may not adequately capture the presence of hearing loss as compared to audiometry. This study investigates the concordance between subjective and objective hearing assessments among older adults with and without cognitive impairment and evaluates factors associated with concordance. METHODS: Participants were a subset of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study (ARIC-NCS), a prospective cohort study representing four US communities with adjudicated cognitive diagnoses and audiometric data, totaling 3326 self-rated and 520 proxy-rated hearing assessments. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression estimated the magnitude of the association between the concordance of hearing assessments and variables of interest. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for self-rated hearing status were 71.2% and 85.9% among cognitively normal older adults, 61.1% and 84.9% among persons with MCI, and 52.6% and 81.2% among persons with dementia, respectively. For proxy-rated hearing, sensitivity and specificity were 65.7% and 83.3% for persons with MCI and 73.3% and 60.3% for persons with dementia, respectively. Female sex was positively associated with concordance for self-rated hearing assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The low sensitivity of self- and proxy-rated hearing assessments compared to audiometry suggests that hearing loss among older adults with cognitive impairment may go underreported and unaddressed in subjective assessments. Clinicians and researchers should recognize the limitations of using self- and proxy-rated hearing assessments as measures of hearing status and incorporate objective audiometric evaluation whenever possible.

Author Impact Metrics in Communication Sciences and Disorder Research.

Purpose: The purpose was to examine author-level impact metrics for faculty in the communication sciences and disorder research field across a variety of databases. Method: Author-level impact metrics were collected for faculty from 257 accredited universities in the United States and Canada. Three databases (i.e., Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus) were utilized. Results: Faculty expertise was in audiology (24.4%; n = 490) and speech-language pathology (75.6%; n = 1,520). Women comprised 68.1% of faculty, and men comprised 31.9% of faculty. The percentage of faculty in the field of communication sciences and disorders identified in each database was 10.5% (n = 212), 44.0% (n = 885), and 84.4% (n = 1,696) for Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus, respectively. In general, author-level impact metrics were positively skewed. Metric values increased significantly with increasing academic rank (p < .05), were greater for men versus women (p < .05), and were greater for those in audiology versus speech-language pathology (p < .05). There were statistically significant positive correlations between all author-level metrics (p < .01). Conclusions: These author-level metrics may serve as a benchmark for scholarly production of those in the field of communication sciences and disorders and may assist with professional identity management, tenure and promotion review, grant applications, and employment.