Associations of Primary Spoken Language With Individual Perception of Hearing-Related Disability.

OBJECTIVES: Hispanic/Latino adults are less likely than non-Hispanic White adults to seek treatment for hearing disability. While differential socioeconomic factors may contribute to this finding, differences in phonology and syntax in the Spanish, versus English, language may also influence patient perception of hearing disability. The objective of this study is to investigate the association between primary language spoken and participant perception of hearing disability. DESIGN: This study represents a cross-sectional cohort study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Study cycles 2015-2016 and 2017-2020 data. Multivariable logistic regressions estimated the association between respondent-selected interview language, which was used as a proxy for primary spoken language, and participant perception of hearing disability. Models were adjusted for age, gender, highest degree of education, pure-tone average, and self-reported general health. Participants included 4687 individuals from the United States population who elected to speak English (n = 4083) or Spanish (n = 604) during the interview. Perception of hearing disability was assessed by (1) frequency of reported difficulty in following a conversation in noise, (2) frequency with which hearing caused respondents to experience frustration when talking with members of their family or friends, and (3) participants' subjective overall assessment of their hearing. RESULTS: Speaking Spanish, versus English, as a primary language was associated with a 42% lower odds of reporting difficulty hearing and understanding in background noise (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 0.70). Spanish speakers had 28% lower odds of reporting feeling frustrated when talking to family members or friends due to hearing (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.88) as compared with the English-speaking cohort. Speaking Spanish additionally conferred 31% lower odds of describing their own general hearing as "a little trouble to deaf" than participants speaking English (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.90). These observed associations were independent of age, gender, highest degree of education, better pure-tone average? and self-reported general health. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Spanish speakers may be less likely than English speakers to report hearing-related disability, an effect which may be independent of ethnicity. Patient perception of hearing-related disability is an important component of the assessment of and counseling for hearing-related disability and discussion of the need for amplification or other hearing intervention.

Feasibility of Measuring the Behavioral and Electrophysiological Masking-Level Difference with Nonsense-Syllable Stimuli.

BACKGROUND: The masking-level difference (MLD) can be measured via voluntary behavioral responses (voluntary behavioral MLD [vMLD]) and/or via electrophysiological cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs; electrophysiological MLD [eMLD]). It may be possible to enhance the ecologic validity of the MLD by using nonsense-syllable speech stimuli. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of measuring both the vMLD and eMLD with speech stimuli. The study also investigates whether certain nonsense-syllable stimuli (/α/, /dα/, /di/, /tα/, /wα/) may be more useful than others in measuring both the vMLD and eMLD. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a descriptive feasibility pilot study. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventeen young adults (age range 19-26 years; 15 women) with hearing thresholds of 0.25-8.0 kHz ≤ 25 dB HL, bilaterally, were recruited. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Behavioral and electrophysiological MLDs were measured with similar methods. The MLD was defined as SoNo - SπNo thresholds. Stimuli were natural-sounding nonsense syllables (/α/, /dα/, /di/, /tα/, /wα/), which were presented in 65 dB HL continuous speech-weighted noise. The eMLD was measured with the CAEP P2. Group means, standard deviations, and distributions were presented. The feasibility of using nonsense syllables was evaluated by considering whether measurable vMLDs and eMLDs were produced. Useful nonsense syllables produced vMLDs and eMLDs with (1) comparatively large mean magnitudes, (2) few negligible MLDs, and (3) distributions with adequate spread and few extreme values. RESULTS: The stimuli /α/ (6.0 [1.9]) and /wα/ (7.5 [1.3]) produced vMLDs with the highest average magnitudes, with no vMLDs of 0 dB and with adequate spread. The stimulus /α/ produced eMLDs with the highest average magnitude (9.6 [2.8]), no eMLDs of 0 dB and adequate spread, whereas the stimulus /wα/ produced eMLDs with an adequate magnitude (6.9 [3.9]), no MLDs of 0 dB, but with a right-skewed distribution and an extreme value. The other stimuli produced vMLDs with low mean magnitudes and several vMLDs of 0 dB. CONCLUSION: These pilot data support the feasibility of using nonsense syllables to record vMLDs and eMLDs. The stimulus /α/ appeared most useful for both behavioral and electrophysiological modalities. Differences in MLDs across modalities may be attributed to low-level audibility of some high-frequency components of the stimuli.

Self-reported hearing loss and health during a pandemic: Findings from a cross-sectional analysis using a 2021 household survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic differentially impacted individuals with hearing loss, likely in part due to increased communication difficulties from masking, a commonly implemented protective measure. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the association between self-reported hearing loss and health during the pandemic. METHODS: This study uses data from the COVID-19 Survey collected by the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin from February to March 2021. Hearing loss was defined as self-reported fair or poor hearing. The outcomes were self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression, separately, and self-reported general health. Multivariable models adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity were used to examine the associations between hearing loss with each outcome. Results are presented as prevalence ratios (PR) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: There were 1857 participants (60.3 % female, 12.9 % non-white) with a mean age of 57.1 years in this cross-sectional study. In multivariable models, individuals with hearing loss (versus none) had higher prevalence of depression (PR: 1.22, 95 % CI: 1.06, 1.39), anxiety (PR: 1.13, 95 % CI: 1.02, 1.27), and self-reported fair or poor health (PR: 2.61, 95 % CI: 1.89, 3.61). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss was associated with poorer self-reported health during winter 2021 of the COVID-19 pandemic, when mask use in public was newly mandated and vaccines were not widely available to the general public. Further research on the impact of public health policies on vulnerable populations, including those with hearing loss, is warranted. Such research could inform policy decisions that accommodate these populations.

Demographic factors impact the rate of hearing decline across the adult lifespan.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the natural history of hearing loss in adults, despite it being an important public health problem. The purpose of this study is to describe the rate of hearing change per year over the adult lifespan. METHODS: The 1436 participants are from the MUSC Longitudinal Cohort Study of Age-related Hearing Loss (1988-present). Outcomes are audiometric thresholds at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz, averaged across right and left ears, and pure-tone average (PTA). Demographic factors are sex (female/male), race, which is categorized as white or racial Minority, and baseline age group (18-39, 40-59, 60-69, 70+ years). Linear mixed regression models are used to estimate the effect of age (per year) on the rate of threshold and PTA change. RESULTS: Participants' mean age is 63.1 (SD 14.9) years, 57.7% are female, and 17.8% are racial Minority (17.1% were Black or African American). In sex-race-adjusted models, rates of threshold change are 0.42 to 1.44 dB across thresholds. Rates of change differ by sex at most individual thresholds, but not PTA. Females (versus males) showed higher rates of threshold change in higher frequencies but less decline per year in lower frequencies. Black/African American (versus white) participants have lower rates of threshold and PTA change per year. Hearing thresholds decline across the adult lifespan, with older (versus younger) baseline age groups showing higher rates of decline per year. CONCLUSIONS: Declines to hearing occur across the adult lifespan, and the rate of decline varies by sex, race, and baseline age.

Hearing loss is a common health condition, yet little is known about how hearing changes over time. In this study of 1436 individuals from across the adult lifespan, declines in hearing occurred throughout adulthood. The rate of decline per year varied by sex, in that females experienced more decline in higher pitches but less decline in lower pitches. The rate of decline per year varied by race, in that Black/African American (versus white) participants showed lower rates of hearing decline per year. The rate of decline per year also varied by age, in that older (versus younger) baseline age groups had higher rates of hearing decline per year. This study contributes to understanding of the natural history of hearing loss and could be used to better understand how to focus efforts to prevent and/or manage hearing loss across populations.

Change on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and associated factors: results from a longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Describe how the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) changes over time and determine associated factors. DESIGN: Data were from a community-based cohort study. Linear regression models were used to estimate mean baseline and final RHHI scores and change (final minus baseline score). Logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with substantial RHHI change, defined as ±6 points. Factors included baseline age, sex, race, hearing aid use, and baseline pure-tone average (PTA; 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz, worse ear). STUDY SAMPLE: This study included 583 participants (mean age: 66.4 [SD 9.1] years; 59.9% female; 14.2% Minority race) with a mean follow-up time of 7.6 (SD 4.9) years. RESULTS: Baseline and final RHHI scores were 7.9 and 9.2 points, corresponding to an average 1.3-point increase in hearing difficulty over time. Most participants (65.4%) did not show substantial RHHI change, whereas 21.4% and 13.2% experienced substantial increase and decrease, respectively. In separate multivariable models, PTA and hearing aid use were associated with substantial increase in hearing difficulty, and PTA was associated with substantial decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The average RHHI change was relatively small. Hearing aid use and PTA were associated with RHHI change.

Prevalence of self-reported hearing difficulty on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is common in aging adults and is an important public health concern. Self-reported measures of hearing difficulty are often used in research and clinical practice, as they capture the functional impacts of hearing loss on individuals. However, little research has evaluated the prevalence or factors associated with self-reported hearing difficulty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of self-reported hearing difficulty, measured by the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI), and associated factors. METHODS: This study was conducted in a community-based cohort study based in Charleston, SC. We determined the prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty (score ≥ 6 points) and evaluated associated factors with logistic regression models. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: There were 1558 participants included in this study (mean age 63.7 [SD 14.4], 56.9% female, 20.0% Minority race). The prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty was 48.8%. In a multivariable model, older age (per + 1 year; OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.96, 0.98]), Minority (vs. White) race (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.49, 0.94]), and speech-in-noise scores that are better than predicted (OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98, 1.00]) were associated with lower odds of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty. Furthermore, female (vs. male) sex (OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.03, 1.86]), higher PTA in the worse ear (per + 1 dB; OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.09, 1.12]), more comorbid conditions (vs. 0; 1 condition: OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.07, 2.11]; 2 conditions: OR 1.96 [95% CI 1.32, 2.93]; 3 + conditions: OR 3.00 [95% CI 1.60, 5.62]), noise exposure (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.16, 2.03]), bothersome tinnitus (OR 2.16 [95% CI 1.59, 2.93]), and more depressive symptoms (OR 1.04 [95% CI 1.01, 1.07]) were associated with higher odds of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of RHHI self-reported hearing difficulty is high, and associated factors included demographics, audiometric hearing and other hearing-related factors, and physical and mental health. The RHHI likely captures functional impacts of hearing loss that are not captured by audiometry alone. Study findings can support the correct interpretation of the RHHI in research and clinical settings.

Agreement between audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory differs by demographic factors.

BACKGROUND: New standardised measures of self-reported hearing difficulty can be validated against audiometric hearing loss. This study reports the influence of demographic factors (age, sex, race and socioeconomic position (SEP)) on the agreement between audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty. METHODS: Participants were 1558 adults (56.9% female; 20.0% racial minority; mean age 63.7 (SD 14.1) years) from the Medical University of South Carolina Longitudinal Cohort Study of Age-Related Hearing Loss (1988-current). Audiometric hearing loss was defined as the average of pure-tone thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 kHz >25 dB HL in the worse ear. Self-reported hearing difficulty was defined as ≥6 points on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) or RHHI screening version (RHHI-S). We report agreement between audiometric hearing loss and the RHHI(-S), defined by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and observed minus predicted prevalence. Estimates were stratified to age group, sex, race and SEP proxy. RESULTS: The prevalence of audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty were 49.0% and 48.8%, respectively. Accuracy was highest among participants aged <60 (77.6%) versus 60-70 (71.4%) and 70+ (71.9%) years, for white (74.6%) versus minority (68.0%) participants and was similar by sex and SEP proxy. Generally, agreement of audiometric hearing loss and RHHI(-S) self-reported hearing difficulty differed by age, sex and race. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships of audiometric hearing loss and self-reported hearing difficulty vary by demographic factors. These relationships were similar for the full (RHHI) and screening (RHHI-S) versions of this tool.

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.

Priorities for hearing loss prevention and estimates of global cause-specific burdens of hearing loss: a systematic rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects approximately 1·6 billion individuals worldwide. Many cases are preventable. We aimed to estimate the annual number of new hearing loss cases that could be attributed to meningitis, otitis media, congenital rubella syndrome, cytomegalovirus, and ototoxic medications, specifically aminoglycosides, platinum-based chemotherapeutics, and antimalarials. METHODS: We used a targeted and a rapid systematic literature review to calculate yearly global incidences of each cause of hearing loss. We estimated the prevalence of hearing loss for each presumed cause. For each cause, we calculated the global number of yearly hearing loss cases associated with the exposure by multiplying the estimated exposed population by the prevalence of hearing loss associated with the exposure, accounting for mortality when warranted. FINDINGS: An estimated 257·3 million people per year are exposed to these preventable causes of hearing loss, leading to an estimated 33·8 million new cases of hearing loss worldwide per year. Most hearing loss cases were among those with exposure to ototoxic medications (19·6 million [range 12·6 million-27·9 million] from short-course aminoglycoside therapy and 12·3 million from antimalarials). We estimated that 818 000 cases of hearing loss were caused by otitis media, 346 000 by meningitis, 114 000 by cytomegalovirus, and 59 000 by congenital rubella syndrome. INTERPRETATION: The global burden of preventable hearing loss is large. Hearing loss that is attributable to disease sequelae or ototoxic medications contributes substantially to the global burden of hearing loss. Prevention of these conditions should be a global health priority. FUNDING: The US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the US National Institute on Aging.

The Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Average Predict Hearing Aid Use Equally Well.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to (a) compare the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) and pure-tone average (PTA) in their abilities to predict hearing aid use and (b) report the optimal cut-point values on the RHHI and PTA that predict hearing aid use. METHOD: Participants were from a community-based cohort study. We evaluated the ability of the RHHI and PTA as (a) continuous variables and (b) binary variables characterized by the optimal cut point determined by the Youden Index to predict hearing aid use. RHHI scores range from 0 to 72, and PTA was defined as averaged thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz in the worse ear. We used logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves with corresponding concordance statistics (c-statistics) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the predictive ability of models and chi-square tests to determine whether c-statistics were significantly different. RESULTS: This study included 581 participants (Mage = 72.9 [SD = 9.9] years; 59.9% female; 14.3% Minority race). The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.79, 95% CI [0.75, 0.83]) and PTA (0.81, 95% CI [0.78, 0.85]), as continuous variables, were not significantly different (p = .25). The optimal cut points for the RHHI and PTA to predict hearing aid use were 6 points and 32.5 dB HL, respectively. The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.72, 95% CI [0.68, 0.76]) and PTA (0.75, 95% CI [0.71, 0.79]), as binary variables, were not significantly different (p = .27). CONCLUSION: The RHHI and PTA are similar in their ability to predict hearing aid use.

Monitoring hearing and vision functions in older adults: rationale and process.

Hearing and vision impairment are highly prevalent in ageing individuals and are significant public health concerns given their meaningful impacts on individuals and society. Yet, many cases of both visual and hearing impairment remain unidentified and thus, unaddressed. This article describes the rationale and process of monitoring for visual and hearing impairment in older adults, by summarising guidance and resources available from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that were developed based upon the best current available evidence. It is recommended that vision screening be offered at least annually to adults aged over 50 years and hearing screening be offered every 5 years to adults aged 50-64 years, and every 1-3 years to adults aged 65 years or older. Both hearing and vision screening can be conducted in community, home or clinical settings by trained health workers with simple equipment. More specifically, vision screening can be conducted with a simple eye chart. Hearing screening can be conducted without specialised equipment by using pure tones set to a fixed level, an automated mobile- or web-based digits-in-noise test, or the whispered voice test. Hearing screening can also be conducted in audiology clinics using pure-tone air conduction threshold testing. There exists WHO guidance to support the monitoring of hearing and vision impairment, which, when warranted, can facilitate referral for comprehensive assessment and prompt appropriate, person-centred interventions to mitigate the negative consequences of hearing and vision impairment.

Self-Reported Hearing Loss Is Associated With Poorer Health Care Access, Delays, and Communication With Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings From the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin COVID-19 Community Impact Survey.

PURPOSE: This article aimed to evaluate associations of self-reported hearing loss with health care access and delays and difficulties communicating with health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The COVID-19 Community Impact Survey was administered online to a sample of participants from the population-based Survey of the Health of Wisconsin study cohort in Spring 2021. Hearing loss was defined as self-reported fair or poor hearing. Difficulty with health care access and delays were defined as self-reporting needing but not getting medical care or self-reporting delays in appointments due to COVID-19, respectively. Poor communication with health care providers was defined as self-reported difficulties communicating with health care providers due to wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between hearing loss and the health care outcomes. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). First, models were adjusted for age and sex. Next, models were additionally adjusted for education, race/ethnicity, self-rated health, and number of chronic conditions. RESULTS: This study included 1,582 participants (62.3% women; 11.9% non-White; age range: 18-75+ years). The number of participants with hearing loss was 196 (12.4%). After multivariable adjustment, self-reported hearing loss was associated with poorer health care access (OR = 2.41, 95% CI [1.62, 3.59]), health care delays (OR = 1.93, 95% CI [1.37, 2.71]), and increased difficulty communicating with health care providers wearing face masks (OR = 3.31, 95% CI [2.15, 5.08]) during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on difficulties accessing and using health care are likely exacerbated for individuals with hearing loss. There is a need for interventions that will optimize health care experiences for individuals with hearing loss, particularly when face masks and/or telecommunications are used to provide health care services.

Fitting a Hearing Aid on the Better Ear, Worse Ear, or Both: Associations of Hearing-aid Fitting Laterality with Outcomes in a Large Sample of US Veterans.

Longitudinal electronic health records from a large sample of new hearing-aid (HA) recipients in the US Veterans Affairs healthcare system were used to evaluate associations of fitting laterality with long-term HA use persistence as measured by battery order records, as well as with short-term HA use and satisfaction as assessed using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), completed within 180 days of HA fitting. The large size of our dataset allowed us to address two aspects of fitting laterality that have not received much attention, namely the degree of hearing asymmetry and the question of which ear to fit if fitting unilaterally. The key findings were that long-term HA use persistence was considerably lower for unilateral fittings for symmetric hearing loss (HL) and for unilateral worse-ear fittings for asymmetric HL, as compared to bilateral and unilateral better-ear fittings. In contrast, no differences across laterality categories were observed for short-term self-reported HA usage. Total IOI-HA score was poorer for unilateral fittings of symmetric HL and for unilateral better-ear fittings compared to bilateral for asymmetric HL. We thus conclude that bilateral fittings yield the best short- and long-term outcomes, and while unilateral and bilateral fittings can result in similar outcomes on some measures, we did not identify any HL configuration for which a bilateral fitting would lead to poorer outcomes. However, if a single HA is to be fitted, then our results indicate that a better-ear fitting has a higher probability of long-term HA use persistence than a worse-ear fitting.

Associations of Dietary Intake With Self-Reported Hearing Loss: Findings From the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations of dietary intake components with hearing loss. METHOD: Participants were from the population-based Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. The Block food frequency questionnaire measured dietary intake of carbohydrates, fiber, protein, free (added) sugars, fruits, vegetables, saturated and trans fats, and glycemic index. Intake was categorized into quintiles (Q). Hearing loss was self-reported. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations of dietary determinants with hearing loss. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Final models were adjusted for age, sex, total energy intake, race/ethnicity, education, smoking, and regular physical activity. RESULTS: There were 2,839 participants (56% women; Mage = 48.2 [SD = 14.5] years) included. Higher consumption of trans fat (Q5: OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.27, 2.64]) and higher glycemic index (Q5: OR = 1.34, 95% CI [1.00, 1.80]) were associated with increased odds of hearing loss. Hearing loss was associated with fruit, saturated- and trans-fat intake in women, and trans-fat intake and glycemic index in men. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary intake was associated with self-reported hearing loss. Research on mechanistic pathways of associations and public health interventions to prevent hearing loss is needed.

The electrophysiological masking level difference: effects of age and mediation of hearing and cognition.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the conceptual framework that age effects on the electrophysiological binaural masking level difference (MLD) are partially mediated by age-related hearing loss and/or global cognitive function via mediation analysis. DESIGN: Participants underwent a series of audiometric tests. The MLD was measured via cortical auditory evoked potentials using a speech stimulus (/ɑ/) in speech-weighted background noise. We used mediation analyses to determine the total effect, natural direct effects, and natural indirect effects, which are displayed as regression coefficients ([95% CI]; p value). STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-eight individuals aged 19-87 years (mean [SD]: 53.3 [25.2]), recruited from the community. RESULTS: Older age had a significant total effect on the MLD (-0.69 [95% CI: -0.96, -0.45]; p < 0.01). Neither pure tone average (-0.11 [95% CI: -0.43, 0.24; p = 0.54] nor global cognitive function (-0.02 [95% CI: -0.13, 0.02]; p = 0.55) mediated the relationship of age and the MLD and effect sizes were small. Results were insensitive to use of alternative hearing measures or inclusion of interaction terms. CONCLUSIONS: The electrophysiological MLD may be an age-sensitive measure of binaural temporal processing that is minimally affected by age-related hearing loss and global cognitive function.

Associations of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Use With Cognition, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Depressive Symptoms.

ObjectivesDetermine associations of hearing loss (HL) and hearing aid (HA) use with cognition, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and depressive symptoms. Methods: Participants were from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study or Beaver Dam Offspring Study. HL was defined as pure-tone average (.5-4.0 kHz) > 25 dB. A principal component analysis of 5 cognitive tasks measured cognition. The SF-12 measured mental and physical HRQoL. The Centers for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale measured depressive symptoms (score ≥ 16). Regression models returned beta (B) coefficients or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: This study included 3574 participants. HL (vs. none) was associated with poorer cognition (B-.12 [-.18, -.06]), mental (B-.99 [-1.65, -.33]) and physical (B-.76 [-1.50, -.03]) HRQoL, and increased odds of depressive symptoms (OR 1.49 [1.16, 1.91]). HA users had better cognition than non-users. Discussion: HL likely impacts cognition and well-being. HA use may have cognitive benefits.

Self-reported hearing loss is associated with poorer perceived health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality: Findings from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a highly prevalent chronic condition impacting communication and may negatively influence patients' health care experiences. OBJECTIVE: Determine associations of hearing loss with perceived health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality in a representative sample of the general population. METHODS: The Survey of the Health of Wisconsin (SHOW) is a household-based examination survey that collects data from a representative sample of Wisconsin residents. SHOW participants from years 2008-2013 with data on self-reported hearing loss and health care access, timeliness, satisfaction, and quality were included in this study. Age- and sex- and multivariable-adjusted (additionally adjusted for race/ethnicity, education, marital status, public health region, smoking, chronic disease, self-reported health, and insurance coverage) logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations of hearing loss with participants' health care experiences. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 2438 individuals (42.1% men) included in this study with an average age of 48.3 (range 21-74; standard deviation [SD] 14.4) years. The number of participants who self-reported hearing loss was 642 (26.3%). After multivariable adjustment, hearing loss was associated with increased odds of perceived difficulties with health care access (OR 1.47 [1.05, 2.05]), timeliness (OR 1.69 [1.23, 2.32]), quality (OR 2.54 [1.50, 4.32]), and satisfaction (OR 2.50 [1.51, 4.13]). CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of hearing loss and the growing aging population, there is an urgent need to prioritize interventions to improve health care provision for individuals with hearing loss.

Prevalence and global estimates of unsafe listening practices in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of unsafe listening practices from exposure to personal listening devices (PLDs) and loud entertainment venues in individuals aged 12-34 years, and to estimate the number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss from unsafe listening worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of unsafe listening practices from PLDs and loud entertainment venues. We searched three databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2021 that reported unsafe listening practices in individuals aged 12-34 years. Pooled prevalence estimates (95% CI) of exposed populations were calculated using random effects models or ascertained from the systematic review. The number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss worldwide was estimated from the estimated global population aged 12-34 years, and best estimates of exposure to unsafe listening ascertained from this review. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (corresponding to data from 35 records and 19 046 individuals) were included; 17 and 18 records focused on PLD use and loud entertainment venues, respectively. The pooled prevalence estimate of exposure to unsafe listening from PLDs was 23.81% (95% CI 18.99% to 29.42%). There was limited certainty (p>0.50) in our pooled prevalence estimate for loud entertainment venues. Thus, we fitted a model as a function of intensity thresholds and exposure duration to identify the prevalence estimate as 48.20%. The global estimated number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss from exposure to unsafe listening practices ranged from 0.67 to 1.35 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Unsafe listening practices are highly prevalent worldwide and may place over 1 billion young people at risk of hearing loss. There is an urgent need to prioritise policy focused on safe listening. The World Health Organization provides comprehensive materials to aid in policy development and implementation.