Search

Hearing aid use was assessed using both objective (time recorded in the memory of the hearing aid) and subjective methods (interview and patient diary) in a clinical series of consecutive adult female and male Finnish and Norwegian hearing aid candidates (n = 84). The median study time was 34 days (minimum 21, maximum 73). Over a third of the subjects used their hearing aid for less than 4 hours a day according to an objective assessment. Both of the subjective methods tended to overestimate the use. This preliminary study shows that an objective assessment of hearing aid use is needed and the subjective methods must be validated.

Scientific surveys on current and estimated prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) in adult populations (> or = 18 years of age) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and scientific reports on the outcome of hearing aid (HA) rehabilitation worldwide were reviewed. Only a few of the studies meet strict scientific criteria, and many locally clinically relevant studies cannot be generalized to larger populations. Population-based studies indicate an increase in prevalence of HI with age, but because of differences in study populations and available national population statistics, the studies do not allow reliable comparisons between countries or estimation of future prevalence of HI. Studies on HA prescription or outcomes do not provide uniform data in favour of non-linear amplification, but they do show some subject preference for the newer technology. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the degree of HI and the effects of amplification. The literature review alone gives only limited information regarding the extent of the problem of HI in adult populations in the target countries. Similarly, only a few studies on HA outcome meet strict scientific criteria and even fewer studies correlate rehabilitation outcome with the degree of HI, disability or handicap.

The epidemiology of childhood hearing impairments was studied in a clinical series of the birth cohorts for 1973-82 and 1983-92 from a geographically well-defined area. The overall prevalence of hearing impairments with PTA0.5-4 kHz > or = 40 dB was 1.2/1000 live births. Even in the later cohort, the median age ascertainment was 2.6 years for the congenital or early acquired group and 3.0 years for all impairments. Risk indicators for hearing impairment were present in half of the children, and those referred for the risk were ascertained at the median age of 1.1 years. The delay from suspicion to ascertainment was over a year in about one fifth of cases, while the median time from referral to ascertainment was only 1.8 months. The planning and implementation of neonatal hearing screening are suggested, and general information is given on paedoaudiology for both parents and professionals. A database could be beneficial in increasing the systemacy of the diagnostic process.

The aetiology and risk indicators of hearing impairments of all types and degrees were studied in a 1-year birth cohort of 8713 children from northern Finland. The subjects (7 years of age) included in the clinical and audiometric examinations were recruited by standard clinical criteria, i.e. suspicion of parents according to a questionnaire, abnormal hearing screening result or a hearing impairment noted in hospital records (n = 541), and by random sampling from among the 8172 not suspected (n = 1009). One-hundred-and-one subjects in the group suspected of having hearing impairment and 27 subjects in the random sample eventually had hearing impairment. The aetiology could be defined in only 44.5% of the cases, ear infections being the most common. In this relatively small series, only a few risk indicators (congenital anomalies, meningitis and a history of ear discharge lasting for over 1 month) could be shown to be associated with impaired hearing in a logistic regression analysis.