Search

Background: Given that hearing loss is associated with increased social isolation, reduced earning potential and neurocognitive disease, findings of uncorrected hearing loss in the homeless population have important policy implications. We sought to estimate the prevalence of hearing impairment in an adult homeless population., Methods: We recruited adult (age ≥ 18 yr) homeless people across 10 homeless shelters in Toronto between April and June 2018 using a 2-stage sampling technique. Participants were interviewed by 1 interviewer using a modified survey that had been used in previous studies looking at other health needs in homeless populations. A comprehensive head and neck examination and audiometric evaluation were performed in each participant by an otolaryngologist and an audiologist. Descriptive statistics were estimated. Audiometric data were standardized directly for age and sex to facilitate direct comparisons with the general Canadian population., Results: Of the 132 people invited, 100 (75.8%) agreed to participate. The median age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-58) years. The median duration of homelessness was 24 (IQR 6-72) months. Although most participants (78) had some form of extended health care benefits through social assistance, only 22/78 (28%) were aware that hearing tests and hearing aids were covered through these programs. After direct standardization for age and sex, the proportions of participants with a speech-frequency and high-frequency hearing loss were 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.4%-49.3%) and 51.9% (95% CI 42.2%-61.4%), respectively. Nineteen participants were hearing aid candidates, only 1 of whom owned functional hearing aids. Rates of speech-frequency hearing loss (39.5%, 95% CI 30.4%-49.3% v. 19.2%, 95% CI 16.9%-21.7%) and high-frequency hearing loss (51.9%, 95% CI 42.2%-61.4% v. 35.5%, 95% CI 33.1%-37.7%) were substantially higher than in the general Canadian population., Interpretation: Our results suggest that homeless adults have a high prevalence of hearing impairment, even when living within a system of universal health insurance; awareness of health care benefits through social assistance programs was poor. Results from this study may prompt initiatives surrounding homeless outreach and health screening., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Objective: Historically, children with mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss have been reported to experience difficulties related to language and academic functioning. In the context of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, there is an increasing focus on determining optimal clinical interventions for this population of children. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss identified in a clinical population from 1990 to 2006 and to document clinical practices related to recommendations and uptake of amplification., Design: This population-based study consisted of a detailed retrospective chart review of all children identified with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss in a Canadian pediatric center between 1990 and 2006. Hearing loss and patient characteristics were extracted to describe the clinical population. Amplification recommendations and uptake of amplification were documented. Clinical decisions regarding amplification practices were explored as a function of age of identification and severity of hearing loss., Results: A total of 670 children were identified with permanent hearing loss during the 16-yr study period, of which 291 were presented with a mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Detailed reviews of the 255 available medical charts showed that at diagnosis, 178 children presented with mild bilateral, 31 with mild bilateral high frequency, and 46 with unilateral hearing loss. Eighty percent of children had been referred through conventional medical processes before the implementation of universal hearing screening and 20% had been exposed to screening. The average age of identification for the entire group was 54.2 mos (interquartile range, 30.1 to 76.9 mos). Amplification was prescribed for 91.4% of children but there was considerable delay from confirmation of hearing loss to amplification for both children identified with and without screening. Overall, 54.1% received an initial recommendation for amplification and a further 37.3% received a recommendation more than 3 mos after hearing loss confirmation. Practice patterns varied according to category of hearing loss with 60.1% of children with mild bilateral hearing loss receiving an initial recommendation compared with 26.1% of those with unilateral hearing loss. Clinical decision making relative to amplification needs was also changed during the course of audiologic care. The decision to amplify was significantly related to age at identification and degree of hearing loss in the mild bilateral group but not in the unilateral group. Although, more than 90% of children received a recommendation for amplification, chart documentation revealed that less than two thirds of children consistently used their amplification devices. Use of amplification did not vary among children with mild bilateral, mild bilateral high frequency, and unilateral hearing loss., Conclusions: : This research suggests that there is considerable uncertainty related to clinical recommendations of intervention for this population of children. The impact of parental indecision regarding the benefits of amplification is unknown. Further studies are required to document the potential benefits and factors affecting amplification recommendations and use in the current practice environment where children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss are identified early through newborn hearing screening.

This report presents a review of the situation in a number of countries with respect to public health policy for funding of hearing aid services in general and support to bilateral fittings in particular. The data show considerable variations among the countries studied in number of hearing aids fitted per 1000 inhabitants, differing by a factor of 6 between the extremes. Also the percentage of bilateral fittings differs with an average estimated to be of the order of 50%. For hearing-impaired children, bilateral fittings are given full financial support in most countries studied. The data presented indicate the need for a reliable, scientifically valid evidence-base regarding bilateral hearing aid fitting.