Search

Purpose The adverse impact of hearing loss (HL) extends beyond auditory impairment and may affect the individuals' psychosocial wellbeing. We aimed to examine whether there exists a causal psychosocial pathway between HL and depression in later life, via socioeconomic factors and quality of life, and whether hearing aids usage alleviates depressive symptoms over time. Methods We examined the longitudinal relationship between HL and depressive symptoms (CES-D) applying dynamic cross-lagged mediation path models. We used the full dataset of participants aged 50–89 years (74,908 person-years), from all eight Waves of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Their quality of life (CASP-19) and their wealth were examined as the mediator and moderator of this relationship, respectively. Subgroup analyses investigated differences among those with hearing aids within different models of subjectively and objectively identified HL. All models were adjusted for age, sex, retirement status and social engagement. Results Socioeconomic position (SEP) influenced the strength of the relationship between HL and depression, which was stronger in the lowest versus the highest wealth quintiles. The use of hearing aids was beneficial for alleviating depressive symptoms. Those in the lowest wealth quintiles experienced a lower risk for depression after the use of hearing aids compared to those in the highest wealth quintiles. Conclusion HL poses a substantial risk for depressive symptoms in older adults, especially those who experience socioeconomic inequalities. The early detection of HL and provision of hearing aids may not only promote better-hearing health but could also enhance the psychosocial wellbeing of older adults, particularly those in a lower SEP.

We aimed to update the prevalence estimates of hearing loss in older adults in England using a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 years old and older. A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented. Hearing loss was defined as ≥35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz, as measured via Hearcheck in the better-hearing ear. We compared the estimates based on the English census in 2015 to estimates from psychoacoustic hearing data available for 8,263 participants in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Wave 7 (2014–2015). Marked regional variability in hearing loss prevalence was revealed among participants with similar age profiles. The regional differences in hearing outcomes reached up to 13.53% in those belonging to the 71–80 years old group; the prevalence of hearing loss was 49.22% in the North East of England (95%CI 48.0–50.4), versus 35.69% in the South East (95%CI 34.8–36.50). A socio-spatial approach in planning sustainable models of hearing care based on the actual populations’ needs and not on age demographics might offer a viable opportunity for healthier lives. Regular assessment of the extent and causality of the population’s different audiological needs within the country is strongly supported.

Key Points Questions Among middled-aged adults, are self-reported measures of hearing concordant with audiometry findings, and is potential discordance associated with age or lifestyle factors? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 9666 participants in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, self-report measures of hearing had limited accuracy and were not sufficiently sensitive to detect hearing loss. Hearing loss went undetected by the self-reported measures. Meaning These findings may inform public health policies relevant to selection of appropriate and validated tools for detecting hearing problems among middle-aged and older adults., Importance An effective and sustainable hearing loss (HL) screening strategy for the early detection of and intervention for HL in older adults is needed. Objectives To examine the concordance of self-reported measures of hearing difficulty with objective hearing data and the factors associated with the potential discordances among these measures across different population subgroups of a representative sample of people 50 years and older in England. Design, Setting, and Participants This study was a cross-sectional analysis of wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a large, population-based, prospective cohort study that provides a unique resource for exploring issues associated with aging in England in the 21st century. The full analytic cohort was composed of 9666 individuals participating in the ELSA wave 7, which collected information from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015. This study further analyzed a sample of 8529 adults 50 to 89 years of age who had an assessment of their hearing by self-reported measures, and consented to assessment by a qualified nurse via a hearing screening device, and did not have an ear infection or a cochlear implant. Bivariate analyses were performed from July 1 to December 30, 2018, and multivariate analysis from January 1 to June 30, 2019. Multiple logistic regression models examined factors associated with misclassification of hearing difficulties across several categories among those with objectively identified HL. Exposures The study examined whether age, marital status, retirement status, indicators of socioeconomic position, and lifestyle factors (such as body mass index, physical activity, and tobacco and alcohol consumption) were associated with the concordance between self-reported hearing problems and manual audiometry among older adults. Main Outcomes and Measures Self-reported hearing measures, including hearing in background noise, compared with objective audiometric assessments. Results A total of 9666 study participants (5368 female [55.5%]; mean [SD] age, 67.4 [14.4] years) provided responses regarding their hearing difficulties, hearing in noise, quality of care in hearing, and hearing aid recommendation in ELSA wave 7. Within the cohort, 684 individuals (30.2%) with objectively measured HL greater than 35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz went undetected by the self-report measure, whereas the new constructed categories for moderate and moderately severe or severe HL resulted in 9.3% increased sensitivity. Factors associated with misreporting hearing difficulties (while they had objectively measured HL >35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz, in the better-hearing ear) were as follows: female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.18-3.28), no educational qualifications (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-2.55), routine or manual occupation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-2.61), tobacco consumption (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.90), alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11-2.34), and lack of moderate physical activity (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.42). Age was largely associated with misreporting of moderately severe to severe HL; the odds were 5.75 (95% CI, 1.17-8.13) higher for those 65 to 74 years of age and 7.08 (95% CI, 1.41-9.30) higher for those 75 to 89 years of age to not report their hearing difficulties compared with those 50 to 64 years of age. In addition, socioeconomic indicators, such as educational level (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.63-6.01) and occupation (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.78-5.40), along with lifestyle factors, such as smoking (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-2.48) and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.67-5.12), were factors associated with misreporting moderately severe or severe HL. Conclusions and Relevance The use of a screening measure for audiometric testing and a self-report measure is essential for accurately identifying older people with HL. The results of this study should be considered by HL researchers who analyze self-reported hearing data as a surrogate measurement of audiometric hearing to identify bias in their observed analytic research results., This cross-sectional study examines the concordance of self-reported measures of hearing difficulty with objective hearing data and the factors associated with the potential discordances among these measures in people 50 years and older in England.

OBJECTIVES:Aims were (1) to examine whether socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with hearing loss (HL) among older adults in England and (2) whether major modifiable lifestyle factors (high body mass index, physical inactivity, tobacco consumption and alcohol intake above the low-risk-level guidelines) are associated with HL after controlling for non-modifiable demographic factors and SEP.SETTING:We used data from the wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which is a longitudinal household survey dataset of a representative sample of people aged 50 and older.PARTICIPANTS:The final analytical sample was 8529 participants aged 50-89 that gave consent to have their hearing acuity objectively measured by a screening audiometry device and did not have any ear infection.PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:HL defined as >35 dBHL at 3.0 kHz (better-hearing ear). Those with HL were further subdivided into two categories depending on the number of tones heard at 3.0 kHz.RESULTS:HL was identified in 32.1% of men and 22.3% of women aged 50-89. Those in a lower SEP were up to two times more likely to have HL; the adjusted odds of HL were higher for those with no qualifications versus those with a degree/higher education (men: OR 1.87, 95%CI 1.47 to 2.38, women: OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.95), those in routine/manual occupations versus those in managerial/professional occupations (men: OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.43 to 2.63, women: OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.54), and those in the lowest versus the highest income and wealth quintiles (men: OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.44, women: OR 1.36, 95%CI 0.85 to 2.16, and men: OR1.72, 95%CI 1.26 to 2.35, women: OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.58, respectively). All regression models showed that socioeconomic and the modifiable lifestyle factors were strongly associated with HL after controlling for age and gender.CONCLUSIONS:Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors are associated with HL among older adults as strongly as core demographic risk factors, such as age and gender. Socioeconomic inequalities and modifiable lifestyle behaviours need to be targeted by the health policy strategies, as an important step in designing interventions for individuals that face hearing health inequalities.

Hearing loss is a major health challenge that can have severe physical, social, cognitive, economic, and emotional consequences on people’s quality of life. Currently, the modifiable factors linked to socioeconomic inequalities in hearing health are poorly understood. Therefore, an online database search (PubMed, Scopus, and Psych) was conducted to identify literature that relates hearing loss to health inequalities as a determinant or health outcome. A total of 53 studies were selected to thematically summarize the existing literature, using a critical interpretive synthesis method, where the subjectivity of the researcher is intimately involved in providing new insights with explanatory power. The evidence provided by the literature can be summarized under four key themes: (a) There might be a vicious cycle between hearing loss and socioeconomic inequalities and lifestyle factors, (b) socioeconomic position may interact with less healthy lifestyles, which are harmful to hearing ability, (c) increasing health literacy could improve the diagnosis and prognosis of hearing loss and prevent the adverse consequences of hearing loss on people’s health, and (d) people with hearing loss might be vulnerable to receiving low-quality and less safe health care. This study uses elements from theoretical models of health inequalities to formulate a highly interpretive conceptual model for examining hearing health inequalities. This model depicts the specific mechanisms of hearing health and their evolution over time. There are many modifiable determinants of hearing loss, in several stages across an individual’s life span; tackling socioeconomic inequalities throughout the life-course could improve the population’s health, maximizing the opportunity for healthy aging.

Background Hearing loss is an important public health issue, since it has a very negative impact on peoples’ lives, irrespective of the age at which it develops. However, globally there is a noticeable lack of epidemiological data for health outcomes for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. In Greece, people with hearing disabilities are systematically not included in health policy and planning processes, despite there being a marked tendency for global efforts aimed at improving their quality of life. Methods The sample consisted of 140 adults with hearing loss (86 d/Deaf and 54 hard of hearing) and 97 normal hearing as the control group. We run data collection from April to June 2015, using the Greek version of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2). Socio-demographic and characteristics about non-medical determinants of health (tobacco and alcohol consumption levels, BMI and physical activity).were also collected and were analysed as possible determinants. Data analysis included bivariate and multivariate analyses such as linear regression models. Results Multivariate analyses identified that in all the SF-36v2 dimensions, the scores among deaf people were lower than those with normal hearing. Determinants included the hearing loss degree, educational level, body mass index, levels of physical activity, and alcohol consumption levels, while the variable “number of family members per household” was inversely associated with physical health summary scale score. Conclusions Improving knowledge of the health-related determinants that affect quality of life for the population with hearing loss is an important step in designing targeted services and interventions. In light of these findings, a special effort must be made to ensure the wellbeing of this population.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: To explore the issues related to the use of health services by deaf and hard of hearing adults in Greece.Method: The study population consisted of 140 adults with hearing loss (86 deaf and 54 hard of hearing). We gathered information about sociodemographic characteristics, use of health services characteristics, satisfaction from health providers and complaints during the use of health services.Results: A considerable percentage of the participants did not make appropriate use of healthcare services, as they made avoidable visits to emergency departments even for minor, short-term conditions (p=0.002) or used to just wait for the symptoms to pass in an illness occurrence (p=0.06). They also experienced major difficulties as part of the health visit (p=0.01) and the quality of communication with health providers (p=0.002). The absence of assistive technology, along with the lack of low availability of Sign Language interpreters, were important barriers for those that communicate in Sign Language. Regarding the engagement with healthcare providers, there were high rates of dissatisfaction from doctors, nurses and receptionists related to issues during the use of health services.Conclusions: Our results underscore the fact that deaf and hard of hearing persons constitute a minority population that experience major barriers during the use of health services and considerable difficulties in the healthcare provider-patient relationship. In light of these findings, a special effort must be made to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing individuals receive appropriate, ethical and person-centered healthcare.