Search

Objectives and importance of study: The consequences of sensorineural hearing loss in young children include poor speech and language development, poor educational outcomes,and delayed socio-emotional development. For children who face socio-economic disadvantage, middle ear disease is more prevalent, access to primary health care is more difficult, and psychosocial and education supports are limited. Because of this, the consequences may be amplified. Understanding the risks associated with hearing loss and middle ear dysfunction in underserved populations can enable an earlier, more targeted and cost-effective approach to identifying those with hearing loss and effectively connecting them to systems of care., Study Type: Retrospective study., Method: This study describes the outcomes of an ear and hearing screening program for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds (n = 2489; mean age 11.0 years, standard deviation 1.74 years) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between 2013 and 2016. Screening was conducted in a quiet room, and the test protocol included otoscopy, 226 Hertz (Hz) tympanometry, and pure tone screening at octave frequencies from 500 Hz to 4000 Hz with a referral criterion of 20 decibels hearing level (dB HL) at any one frequency. Outcomes were categorised into 1) pass; 2) middle ear dysfunction only; and 3) did not pass hearing screen (with or without middle ear dysfunction). Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate risk factors for hearing loss and middle ear dysfunction. The factors examined were age, gender, socio-educational advantage, quarter of year assessed, non-English speaking background (NESB), Aboriginal status and region., Results: Higher risks of middle ear dysfunction were associated with younger age and seasonal variation, with higher risk in winter and spring months (July-September and October-December, compared with January-March). There were no differences between those from NESB and those with English as a first language, between the Aboriginal population and non-Aboriginal population, or between those who resided within or outside a major city., Conclusion: More than one in 10 school-age children from lower socio-economic backgrounds experience hearing loss (11.5%). Targeted ear and hearing screening programs offer an opportunity to identify hearing loss during critical learning years and seasons, mitigating longer-term effects on education, and social and mental health., Competing Interests: None delcared.

Objective: A high prevalence of hearing loss in older adults contrasts with a small proportion of people who seek help. Emerging developments in hearing healthcare (HHC) could reduce costs but may not increase access. This study evaluated older adults' perceptions of current and future HHC services in Australia, England, US and Canada to explore potential levers and system improvements., Methods: Semi-structured focus groups (n = 47) were conducted, and data were analysed using a directed content analysis. Participants were adults 60 years and older with a) no hearing problems; b) hearing problems and hearing aid use; and c) hearing problems and no hearing aid use., Results: Perceived barriers, facilitators and preferences were largely consistent across countries, with stigma and trust in HHC being the barriers most often discussed., Conclusion: Although cost and access were consistently deemed important, there may be limited change in help-seeking and HHC uptake unless the key barriers of trust and stigma are addressed. When seeking to undertake transformative change to healthcare it is important to engage recipients of care to understand existing barriers and coproduce a user-centered solution., Competing Interests: AD has received sponsorship from GN Resound to attend conferences, a fee from Natus for lecturing, and royalties paid to Manchester University (when he was employed there) for the intellectual property for Siemen’s HearCheck Screener. KT has received fees from Lend an Ear Inc. for consultancy and developing educational presentations.

Objective: This study was designed to test whether cue utilisation might be employed as a tool to assess the diagnostic skills of audiologists. The utilisation of cues is a characteristic of expertise and critical for successful diagnoses in clinical settings. However, neither in training nor in practice, is there a means by which the diagnostic skills of audiologists can be assessed objectively and reliably., Design: The study comprised a pre-post training evaluation, controlling for prior exposure to the diagnostic testing tool., Study Sample: Three cohorts of trainee audiologists were evaluated, one of which was tested prior to, and following a two-year training programme (16 participants), while the other two groups acted as controls (23 participants and 20 participants, respectively)., Results: Consistent with expectations, cue utilisation increased from the initial to the final stages of training and this effect could not be attributed to cohort nor learning effects., Conclusions: At an applied level, the outcomes provide the basis for a cue-based diagnostic assessment tool that can provide both trainee and practising audiologists with detailed feedback concerning their diagnostic skills.

Sensory abilities decline with age. More than 5% of the world's population, approximately 360 million people, have disabling hearing loss. In adults, disabling hearing loss is defined by thresholds greater than 40 dBHL in the better hearing ear.Hearing disability is an important issue in geriatric medicine because it is associated with numerous health issues, including accelerated cognitive decline, depression, increased risk of dementia, poorer balance, falls, hospitalizations, and early mortality. There are also social implications, such as reduced communication function, social isolation, loss of autonomy, impaired driving ability, and financial decline. Furthermore, the onset of hearing loss is gradual and subtle, first affecting the detection of high-pitched sounds and with difficulty understanding speech in noisy but not in quiet environments. Consequently, delays in recognizing and seeking help for hearing difficulties are common. Age-related hearing loss has no known cure, and technologies (hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive devices) improve thresholds but do not restore hearing to normal. Therefore, health care for persons with hearing loss and people within their communication circles requires education and counseling (e.g., increasing knowledge, changing attitudes, and reducing stigma), behavior change (e.g., adapting communication strategies), and environmental modifications (e.g., reducing noise). In this article, we consider the causes, consequences, and magnitude of hearing loss from a life-course perspective. We examine the concept of "hearing health," how to achieve it, and implications for policy and practice., (© The Author 2016. 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.)

Objective: This paper aims to summarize published findings by the authors and integrate these within current literature to support clinical guidelines when choosing an ear for cochlear implantation in adults with long-term monaural sound deprivation., Study Sample: Four retrospective cohort studies based on data collected in five cochlear implantation centres with adults with bilateral hearing loss who used a single hearing aid for at least 15 years prior to unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation., Design: Review, integration and interpretation of retrospective cohort studies to support clinical recommendations., Results: In this population, the prelingual nature of the hearing loss and the duration of bilateral significant hearing loss were the most reliable predictors of cochlear implantation outcomes. Importantly, the duration of sound deprivation in the ear to be implanted was not a significant predictor of speech recognition scores after cochlear implantation and should carry less weight in making recommendations., Conclusions: In most adults with postlingual hearing loss and long-term monaural sound deprivation, the sound-deprived sound deprivation ear should be preferred for implantation. For adults with prelingual deafness and monaural sound deprivation, the decision should weigh the risks of obtaining poorer results with the cochlear implant compared to the benefits of accessing binaural hearing.

In many countries, a single cochlear implant is offered as a treatment for a bilateral hearing loss. In cases where there is asymmetry in the amount of sound deprivation between the ears, there is a dilemma in choosing which ear should be implanted. In many clinics, the choice of ear has been guided by an assumption that the reorganisation of the auditory pathways caused by longer duration of deafness in one ear is associated with poorer implantation outcomes for that ear. This assumption, however, is mainly derived from studies of early childhood deafness. This study compared outcomes following implantation of the better or poorer ear in cases of long-term hearing asymmetries. Audiological records of 146 adults with bilateral hearing loss using a single hearing aid were reviewed. The unaided ear had 15 to 72 years of unaided severe to profound hearing loss before unilateral cochlear implantation. 98 received the implant in their long-term sound-deprived ear. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the relative contribution of potential predictors to speech recognition performance after implantation. Duration of bilateral significant hearing loss and the presence of a prelingual hearing loss explained the majority of variance in speech recognition performance following cochlear implantation. For participants with postlingual hearing loss, similar outcomes were obtained by implanting either ear. With prelingual hearing loss, poorer outcomes were obtained when implanting the long-term sound-deprived ear, but the duration of the sound deprivation in the implanted ear did not reliably predict outcomes. Contrary to an apparent clinical consensus, duration of sound deprivation in one ear has limited value in predicting speech recognition outcomes of cochlear implantation in that ear. Outcomes of cochlear implantation are more closely related to the period of time for which the brain is deprived of auditory stimulation from both ears.

Objectives: Published literature shows that individual nutrients could influence the risk of developing vision and hearing loss. There is, however, a lack of population-based data on the relationship between overall patterns of food intake and the presence of concurrent vision and hearing impairment. We aimed to assess the associations between diet quality with the prevalence and 5-year incidence of dual sensory impairment (DSI)., Design: Cross-sectional and 5-year longitudinal analyses., Setting: Blue Mountains, Sydney, Australia., Participants: 2443 participants aged ≥50 from baseline were examined and followed over 5 years., Measurements: Dietary data were collected using a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. A modified version of the Healthy Eating Index for Australians was developed to determine total diet score (TDS). Visual impairment was defined as visual acuity less than 20/40 (better eye), and hearing impairment as average pure-tone air conduction threshold greater than 25 dB HL (500-4000 Hz, better ear)., Results: After adjusting for age, sex, education, noise exposure, current smoking, and type 2 diabetes, participants in the lowest compared to the highest quintile of TDS had a 2-fold increased likelihood of having prevalent DSI, odds ratio, OR, 2.62 (95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.08-6.36), P-trend=0.04. Significant associations were not observed between TDS and the prevalence of having a single sensory impairment (vision or hearing loss). Baseline TDS was not significantly associated with the 5-year incidence of DSI. Adherence to dietary guidelines was associated with a reduced likelihood of having DSI in cross-sectional, but not in longitudinal analyses., Conclusions: Further studies with adequate power are warranted to assess the prospective relationship between diet quality and DSI.

Objectives: Diet is one of the few modifiable risk factors for age-related hearing loss. We aimed to examine the link between dietary and supplement intakes of antioxidants, and both the prevalence and 5-year incidence of measured hearing loss., Design: Cross-sectional and 5-year longitudinal analyses., Setting: Blue Mountains, Sydney, Australia., Participants: 2,956 Blue Mountains Hearing Study participants aged 50+ at baseline, examined during 1997-9 to 2002-4., Measurements: Age-related hearing loss was measured and defined as the pure-tone average of frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 kHz >25 dB HL. Dietary data were collected in a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire, and intakes of α-carotene; β-carotene; β-cryptoxanthin; lutein and zeaxanthin; lycopene; vitamins A, C and E; iron and zinc were calculated., Results: After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, education, occupational noise exposure, family history of hearing loss, history of diagnosed diabetes and stroke, each standard deviation (SD) increase in dietary vitamin E intake was associated with a 14% reduced likelihood of prevalent hearing loss, odds ratio, OR, 0.86 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.78-0.98). Those in the highest quintile of dietary vitamin A intake had a 47% reduced risk of having moderate or greater hearing loss (>40 dB HL) compared to those in the lowest quintile of intake, multivariable-adjusted OR 0.53 (CI 0.30-0.92), P for trend = 0.04. However, dietary antioxidant intake was not associated with the 5-year incidence of hearing loss., Conclusions: Dietary vitamin A and vitamin E intake were significantly associated with the prevalence of hearing loss. However, dietary antioxidant intake did not increase the risk of incident hearing loss. Further large, prospective studies are warranted to assess these relationships in older adults.