Screening, Education, and Rehabilitation Services for Hearing Loss Provided to Clients with Low Vision: Measured and Perceived Value Among Participants of the Vision-Hearing Project.

OBJECTIVES: Combined vision and hearing impairment, termed dual sensory impairment (DSI), is associated with poorer health outcomes compared with a single sensory loss alone. Separate systems of care exist for visual and hearing impairment which potentially limit the effectiveness of managing DSI. To address this, a Hearing Screening Education Model (HSEM) was offered to older adults attending a low-vision clinic in Australia within this pilot study. The present study aimed to evaluate the benefits of seeking help on hearing handicap, self-perceived health, and use of community services among those identified with unmet hearing needs after participation in the HSEM. DESIGN: Of 210 older adults (>55 years of age) who completed the HSEM and were referred for follow-up, 169 returned for a follow-up interview at least 12 months later. Of these, 68 (40.2%) sought help, and the majority were seen by a hearing healthcare provider (89.7%). Changes in hearing handicap, quality of life, and reliance on community services between the baseline and 12-month follow-up were compared between those who sought help and those who did not. In addition, the perceived value of the HSEM was assessed. RESULTS: Results showed that there was no significant difference in hearing handicap between those who sought help (mean change -1.02 SD = 7.97, p = 0.3) and those who did not (mean change 0.94 SD = 7.68, p = 0.3), p = 0.18. The mental component of the SF-36 worsened significantly between baseline and follow-up measures across the whole group (mean change -2.49 SD = 9.98, p = 0.002). This was largely driven by those not seeking help, rather than those seeking help, but was not significantly different between the two groups. Those who sought help showed a significant reduction in the use of community services compared with those who did not. Further, all participants positively viewed the HSEM's underlying principle of greater integration between vision and hearing services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a need to further develop and evaluate integrated models of healthcare for older adults with DSI. It also highlights the importance of using broader measures of benefit, other than use of hearing aids to evaluate outcomes of hearing healthcare programs.

Improving access to hearing services for people with low vision: piloting a "hearing screening and education model" of intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the potential unmet need for hearing services among older people attending low-vision rehabilitation, and pilot a "Hearing Screening and Education Model" (HSEM) of intervention to promote use of hearing services and aids among these individuals. DESIGN: In the Vision-Hearing project, 300 clients attending low-vision clinics in Sydney, Australia, participated in baseline interviews and the HSEM (2010-2011). The HSEM consisted of: (1) standard pure-tone audiometry; (2) discussion of hearing loss and implications of dual sensory impairment; and (3) provision of information on hearing services and facilitated referral. Those with hearing loss who did not own hearing aids, reported low use (<1 hr/day), or used a single aid with bilateral loss were referred for full assessment by an audiologist and to the follow-up arm of the study (n = 210). Follow-up interviews were conducted within 12 months to ascertain actions taken and audiological and other health outcomes. RESULTS: Of 169 participants in the follow-up study, 68 (40.2%) sought help for hearing loss within 12 months. Help-seekers had higher mean hearing handicap scores at baseline compared with non-help-seekers. The majority of help-seekers (85.3%) underwent a complete hearing assessment. Fifty-four percent (n = 37) were recommended hearing aids and the majority of these (n = 27) obtained new hearing aids. Seven participants had existing aids adjusted, and 3 obtained alternate assistive listening devices. Almost half of those receiving new aids or adjustments to hearing aids reported low use (<1 hr/day) at follow-up. Among help-seekers, 40% were unsure or did not believe their audiologist knew of their visual diagnosis. Of concern, 60% of participants did not seek help largely due to perceptions their hearing loss was not bad enough; the presence of competing priorities; concerns over dealing with vision loss and managing hearing aids with poor vision. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing- and vision-rehabilitation services need to better screen for, and take account of, dual sensory impairment among their older clients. If audiologists are made more aware of visual conditions affecting their clients, they may be better placed to facilitate access to appropriate technologies and rehabilitation, which may improve aid retention and benefit.