Search

Objective: Hearing loss may negatively impact satisfaction with health care via patient-provider communication barriers and may be amenable to hearing care treatment., Study Design: Cross-sectional., Setting: National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative survey of noninstitutionalized US residents, 2013 to 2018 pooled cycles., Methods: Participants described satisfaction with health care in the past year, categorized as optimal (very satisfied) versus suboptimal (satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied) satisfaction. Self-report hearing without hearing aids (excellent, good, a little trouble, moderate trouble, a lot of trouble) and hearing aid use (yes, no) were collected. Weighted Poisson regression models adjusted for sociodemographic and health covariates were used to estimate prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) of satisfaction with care by hearing loss and hearing aid use., Results: Among 137,216 participants (mean age 50.9 years, 56% female, 12% black), representing 77.2 million Americans in the weighted model, 19% reported trouble hearing. Those with good (PRR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.23), a little trouble (PRR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.23-1.31), moderate trouble (PRR = 1.29, 95% CI, 1.24-1.35), and a lot of trouble hearing (PRR = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.18-1.33) had a higher prevalence rate of suboptimal satisfaction with care relative to those with excellent hearing. Among all participants with trouble hearing, hearing aid users had a 17% decrease in the prevalence rate of suboptimal satisfaction with care (PRR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.78-0.88) compared to nonusers., Conclusion: Hearing loss decreases patient satisfaction with health care, which is tied to Medicare hospital reimbursement models. Hearing aid use may improve patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction, although prospective studies are warranted to truly establish their protective effect., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Purpose: The current standard for management of hearing loss in the United States involves the use of a hearing aid. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of a hearing aid may be less effective in the context of dementia, though national data on use and cessation are not described., Method: This longitudinal analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study followed participants who self-reported hearing aid use to estimate risk of hearing aid cessation over 9 years. We examine whether hearing aid cessation differs by dementia status using generalized estimating equations logistic regression accounting for loss to follow-up. Supplemental analyses were undertaken to examine the contribution of caregiving and environmental factors on hearing aid cessation., Results: Of 1,310 older adults who reported hearing loss (25% 80-84 years, 51% women, 74% White), 22% with dementia and 57% baseline hearing aid use. Dementia increased likelihood of ceasing hearing aid use during the first year after adoption ( OR = 2.07, 95% CI [1.33, 3.23], p interaction = .11). In later years, older adults with either a previous or recent diagnosis of dementia had a 95% higher odds of hearing aid cessation ( OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.31, 2.90]), a decrease in odds with respect to the first year after adoption, when compared to participants without dementia, after adjusting for demographic, health, and economic factors. Economic and social factors that may influence care demands (more caregivers, income-to-poverty ratio, and additional insurance) increased likelihood for cessation for those with dementia., Conclusions: Older adults with (vs. without) dementia are more likely to cease hearing aid use over time, most notably during the first year after adoption. Strategies to support hearing ability, such as self-management or care partner education, may improve communication for those living with co-occurring hearing loss and dementia.

Objective: Hearing loss is increasingly recognized as a chronic disease state with important health sequelae. Although considered a central component of routine audiometric testing, the degree to which various patient factors influence speech discrimination is poorly characterized to date. The primary objective of the current work was to describe associations of cognitive performance, sociodemographic factors, and pure-tone audiometry with speech discrimination in older adults., Study Design: Prospective study., Setting: Olmsted County, Minnesota., Patients: There were 1,061 study participants 50 years or older at enrollment in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging between November 2004 and December 2019 who underwent formal audiometric and cognitive testing included in the current investigation., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was word recognition scores (WRSs; measured as <100% vs 100% as well as continuous), with pure-tone averages (PTAs; 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz), age, sex, years of education, state area deprivation index (ADI) quintiles, and global cognition z scores as explanatory features., Results: The mean (SD) age among the 1,061 participants was 76 (9) years with 528 (50%) males. Participant age [OR (95% CI) for a 10-year increase of 1.8 (1.4-2.3), p < 0.001], male sex [OR = 2.6 (1.9-3.7), p < 0.001], and PTA [OR for a 10-dB hearing loss increase of 2.4 (2.1-2.8), p < 0.001] were all significantly associated with <100% WRSs, with the greatest explanatory ability attributable to the PTA. Years of education ( p = 0.9), state ADI quintile ( p = 0.6), and global cognitive performance ( p = 0.2) were not associated with WRS. The multivariable model demonstrated strong predictive ability for less than perfect WRSs, with a c index of 0.854. Similar results were seen for WRSs analyzed as continuous, with the multivariable model resulting in an R2 value of 0.433., Conclusions: Although PTA exhibited the greatest influence on speech discrimination, advancing age and male sex both independently increased the likelihood of having worse speech discrimination among older adults, even after accounting for years of education, neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, and cognitive function. These findings help identify patient factors that can be instrumental when designing screening programs for adult-onset hearing loss., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: R.C.P. has been a consultant for Roche, Biogen, Merck, Eisai, Genentech, and Nestle; receives publishing royalties from Mild Cognitive Impairment (Oxford University Press, 2003) and UpToDate; and receives research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. N.S.R. is on the advisory board of Neosensory and receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. M.V. has received research funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Biogen in the past, consults for F. Hoffmann-La Roche, receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, AbbVie, and Amgen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: National prevalence estimates are needed to guide and benchmark initiatives to address hearing loss. However, current estimates are not based on samples that include representation of the oldest old US individuals (ie, aged ≥80 years), who are most at-risk of having hearing loss., Objective: To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use by age and demographic covariates in a large, nationally representative sample of adults aged 71 years and older., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, prevalence estimates of hearing loss by age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, and income were computed using data from the 2021 National Health Aging and Trends Study. Survey weights were applied to produce nationally representative estimates to the US older population. Data were collected from June to November 2021 and were analyzed from November to December 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Criterion-standard audiometric measures of hearing loss and self-reported hearing aid use., Results: In this nationally representative sample of 2803 participants (weighted estimate, 33.1 million individuals) aged 71 years or older, 38.3% (95% CI, 35.5%-41.1%) were aged 71 to 74 years, 36.0% (95% CI, 33.1%-38.8%) were aged 75 to 79 years, 13.8% (95% CI, 12.6%-14.9%) were aged 80 to 84 years, 7.9% (95% CI, 7.2%-8.6%) were aged 85 to 89 years, and 4.0% (95% CI, 3.5%-4.6%) were aged 90 years or older; 53.5% (95% CI, 50.9%-56.1%) were female and 46.5% (95% CI, 43.9%-49.1%) were male; and 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.7%) were Black, 6.5% (95% CI, 4.4%-8.7%) were Hispanic, and 82.7% (95% CI, 79.7%-85.6%) were White. An estimated 65.3% of adults 71 years and older (weighted estimate, 21.5 million individuals) had at least some degree of hearing loss (mild, 37.0% [95% CI, 34.7%-39.4%]; moderate, 24.1% [95% CI, 21.9%-26.4%]; and severe, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.3%-5.3%]). The prevalence was higher among White, male, lower-income, and lower education attainment subpopulations and increased with age, such that 96.2% (95% CI, 93.9%-98.6%) of adults aged 90 years and older had hearing loss. Among those with hearing loss, only 29.2% (weighted estimate, 6.4 million individuals) used hearing aids, with lower estimates among Black and Hispanic individuals and low-income individuals., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that bilateral hearing loss is nearly ubiquitous among older US individuals, prevalence and severity increase with age, and hearing aid use is low. Deeper consideration of discrete severity measures of hearing loss in this population, rather than binary hearing loss terminology, is warranted.

Importance: Allostatic load, the cumulative strain that results from the chronic stress response, is associated with poor health outcomes. Increased cognitive load and impaired communication associated with hearing loss could potentially be associated with higher allostatic load, but few studies to date have quantified this association., Objective: To investigate if audiometric hearing loss is associated with allostatic load and evaluate if the association varies by demographic factors., Design, Setting, Participants: This cross-sectional survey used nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Audiometric testing was conducted from 2003 to 2004 (ages 20-69 years) and 2009 to 2010 (70 years or older). The study was restricted to participants aged 50 years or older, and the analysis was stratified based on cycle. The data were analyzed between October 2021 and October 2022., Exposure: A 4-frequency (0.5-4.0 kHz) pure tone average was calculated in the better-hearing ear and modeled continuously and categorically (<25 dB hearing level [dB HL], no hearing loss; 26-40 dB HL, mild hearing loss; ≥41 dB HL, moderate or greater hearing loss)., Main Outcome and Measures: Allostatic load score (ALS) was defined using laboratory measurements of 8 biomarkers (systolic/diastolic blood pressure, body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], and total serum and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glycohemoglobin, albumin, and C-reactive protein levels). Each biomarker was assigned a point if it was in the highest risk quartile based on statistical distribution and then summed to yield the ALS (range, 0-8). Linear regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates. Sensitivity analysis included using clinical cut points for ALS and subgroup stratification., Results: In 1412 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [5.9] years; 293 women [51.9%]; 130 [23.0%] Hispanic, 89 [15.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 318 [55.3%] non-Hispanic White individuals), a modest association was suggested between hearing loss and ALS (ages 50-69 years: β = 0.19 [95% CI, 0.02-0.36] per 10 dB HL; 70 years or older: β = 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.18] per 10 dB HL) among non-hearing aid users. Results were not clearly reflected in the sensitivity analysis with clinical cut points for ALS or modeling hearing loss categorically. Sex-based stratifications identified a stronger association among male individuals (men 70 years or older: β = 0.22 [95% CI, 0.12-0.32] per 10 dB HL; women: β = 0.08 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.20] per 10 dB HL)., Conclusion and Relevance: The study findings did not clearly support an association between hearing loss and ALS. While hearing loss has been shown to be associated with increased risk for numerous health comorbidities, its association with the chronic stress response and allostasis may be less than that of other health conditions.

Background: Dementia and hearing loss (HL) are conditions, which restrict communication ability and amplify the difficulty of implementing effective care coordination and communication with medical providers. We examined how the presence of HL and dementia influence communication with medical providers, and the role of involved care partners during medical visits., Methods: Drawing on responses from 7070 community-dwelling older adults who participated in the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study, we used logistic regression to quantify care partner accompaniment to medical visits and the role care partners assume during visits by older adult hearing and dementia status., Results: Nearly 4 in 10 older adults with dementia also reported HL. Eighty-two percent of older adults with both HL and dementia were accompanied to medical visits by a care partner. Those with HL and dementia were six times more likely to be accompanied by a care partner to medical visits than those with neither condition (OR: 6.04; 95% CI:4.06, 8.99). Care partners of older adults with both (vs neither) HL and dementia were more actively engaged in: (1) facilitating understanding between the older adult and doctor (OR: 4.55, 95% CI:2.68, 7.71); (2) asking or telling the doctor information (OR: 6.13, 95% CI:3.44, 10.9); and (3) reminding the older adult of their questions (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.66, 3.83)., Conclusions: Care partners have an active role during medical visits of older adults with HL and dementia. Efforts to support care partner engagement and teach advocacy skills may close gaps in care quality for the subgroup of older adults who are living with HL and dementia., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objective: To describe the association between midlife carotid atherosclerosis and late-life hearing loss among participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cross-sectional study and temporal analysis of a cohort within the ongoing ARIC prospective cohort study, participants were recruited from 4 communities in the US. The analysis evaluated information on mean carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), from visit 1 (1987-1989) to visit 4 (1994-1996), carotid plaque presence at visit 4, and audiometric data from visit 6 (2016-2017). The cIMT measures were calculated from ultrasonography recordings by trained readers at the ARIC Ultrasound Reading Center. At each visit, cIMT was computed as the average of 3 segments: the distal common carotid, the carotid artery bifurcation, and the proximal internal carotid arteries. Presence of carotid plaque was determined based on an abnormal wall thickness, shape, or wall texture. Audiometric 4-frequency pure tone average (PTA) was measured and calculated for the better-hearing ear and modeled as a continuous variable. Linear regression estimated the association between cIMT and carotid plaque with hearing, adjusting for age, sex, race and study center, education level, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), smoking status, hypertension, cholesterol levels, diabetes, and exposure to occupational noise. Missing data (exposure and covariates) were imputed with multiple imputation by chained equations. Data analyses were performed from April 6 to July 13, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hearing loss assessed using 4-frequency (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kilohertz) PTA for both ears and carotid plaque at visit 4 and mean cIMT from visit 1 to visit 4., Results: Among a total of 3594 participants (mean [SD] age at visit 4, 59.4 [4.6] years; 2146 [59.7%] female; 819 [22.8%] Black and 2775 [77.2%] White individuals), fully adjusted models indicated that an additional 0.1 mm higher mean cIMT was associated with 0.59 dB (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.02 dB) higher PTA. Compared with participants without carotid plaque, plaque presence was associated with 0.63 dB (95% CI, -0.57 to 1.84 dB) higher PTA., Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study with temporal analyses of a cohort with the ongoing ARIC study found that subclinical atherosclerosis in midlife was associated with worse hearing in older adulthood. Prevention and control of carotid atherosclerosis during middle age may positively affect the hearing health of older adults.

Purpose: The purpose of this article was to study the association between hearing loss (HL) and labor force participation in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)., Method: This cross-sectional study used data from the 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2011-2012, and 2015-2016 cycles of the NHANES. The sample was restricted to adults aged 25-65 years with complete audiometric data. HL was defined based on the pure-tone average (PTA) of 0.5-, 1-, 2-, and 4-kHz thresholds in the better hearing ear as follows: no loss (PTA < 25 dB), mild HL (25 dB < PTA < 40 dB), and moderate-to-severe HL (PTA > 40 dB). The association between HL and labor force participation was estimated using weighted logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, living arrangements, and health status., Results: In a sample of 9,963 participants (50.6% women, 22.6% Black, 27% Hispanic), we found that compared with adults without HL, individuals with moderate-to-severe HL had greater odds of being outside of the labor force (odds ratio = 2.35; 95% confidence interval: 1.42-3.88). However, there were no differences by HL status in being employed or having a full- versus part-time job., Conclusions: Moderate-to-severe HL, but not mild HL, was associated with higher odds of not participating in the labor force. However, there were no differences by HL status in being employed or having a full- versus part-time job. Further research is needed to better characterize how HL may affect labor force participation., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19858930.

Objectives: Late-life depression is a comorbidity that may co-occur in older adults with hearing loss-each has prevalent and independent modifiable risk factors for dementia., Methods: Using data from 1,820 Health, Aging and Body Composition study participants (74 ± 2.8 years, 38% Black race), we compared the hearing loss-dementia/cognitive decline relationship between those with normal hearing/mild hearing loss and those with moderate or greater hearing loss. Using linear mixed-effects and Cox proportional hazard models, we investigated if the associations between hearing loss and cognitive decline or dementia (Modified Mini-Mental State [3MS] Examination and Digit Symbol Substitution Test [DSST]) differed by the presence or absence of depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were defined as Center for Epidemiologic Study-Depression scale 10 ≥10 at one or more visits from Years 1-5. Algorithmic incident dementia was defined using medication use, hospitalizations, and cognitive test scores. Audiometric hearing loss was measured at Year 5 and categorized as normal/mild versus moderate or greater hearing loss., Results: Having both hearing loss and depressive symptoms (vs. having neither) was associated with faster rates of decline in 3MS Examination (β = -0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.78, -0.19) and DSST (β = -0.35; 95% CI: -0.67, -0.03) over 10 years of follow-up. Having both hearing loss and depressive symptoms (vs. neither) was associated with increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.91; 95% CI: 1.59, 5.33 vs. HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.15 hearing loss only and HR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.56, 3.53 depressive symptoms only) of incident dementia in multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models., Discussion: Comorbid conditions among hearing-impaired older adults should be considered and may aid in dementia prevention and management strategies., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)