Self-reported hearing loss and manual audiometry: A rural versus urban comparison.

Objective To examine whether self-reported hearing difficulty is an accurate measure of hearing loss compared with standard hearing screening with pure tone audiometry in rural and urban communities. Design Convenience sampling. Setting Urban and rural areas of Western Australia. Participants A total of 2090 participants (923 men; 1165 women; 2 unknown) aged 20-100 years presenting for community-based hearing screening in urban (982) and rural (1090) areas. Interventions Self-reported hearing difficulty assessed with the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening questionnaire. Hearing loss defined as average hearing thresholds >25 dB in the better ear using screening audiometry conducted at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz. Main outcome measures Nil. Results The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening was sensitive (≥60 years = 76.69%; <60 years = 71.67%) but not specific (≥60 years = 45.15%; <60 years = 49.63%) for identifying hearing loss. The <60 age group had a hearing loss prevalence of 25.6%, and a false-positive rate of 67.12% compared with a prevalence of 69.12% and false-positive rate of 29.77% for the ≥60 age group. For all ages, rural participants were more likely to have a disabling hearing loss (odds ratio 2.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.55-2.67); χ²(1) = 27.28; P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in hearing aid uptake. Conclusions Patients in rural areas presenting for hearing screenings are more likely to suffer hearing loss than adults in urban areas. We suggest rural health practitioners incorporate a self-reported hearing loss questionnaire into health check-ups for adults, particularly patients aged ≥60 years due to the high prevalence of hearing loss in this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]