Prevalence Of Hearing Difficulty Research Articles

The Influence of Occupational Noise Exposure on Cardiovascular and Hearing Conditions among Industrial Workers

This study was conducted to estimate the current prevalence of hypertension, cardiovascular condition and hearing difficulty of workers exposure to occupational noise, and to analyze any associations between these abnormal signs and occupational noise exposure. The subjects included 5205 noise-exposed workers. Workers with high noise exposure were more likely to have a higher threshold value than low exposure ones (P < 0.05). Subjects in the high exposure group had a significantly higher risk of hypertension and hearing loss than the ones in low exposure group. Between the ages of 30 and 45, high-level occupational noise exposure led to a significantly raising risk of both hypertension (Adjusted OR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.19–2.11) and hearing loss (Adjusted OR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.03–1.60) when comparing to low-level noise exposure. In male workers, the prevalence of hearing difficulty in high exposure group was approximately 1.2 times worse than in low group (P = 0.006). In addition, exposure to high noise level demonstrated a significant association with hypertension and hearing loss when the duration time to occupational noise was longer than 10 years. Hypertension and hearing difficulty is more prevalent in the noise-exposed group (higher than 85 dB[A]). Steps to reduce workplace noise levels and to improve workplace-based health are thus urgently needed.

Self reported hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and normal audiometric thresholds, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2002

Perceived hearing difficulty (HD) and/or tinnitus in the presence of normal audiometric thresholds present a clinical challenge. Yet, there is limited data regarding prevalence and determinant factors contributing to HD. Here we present estimates generalized to the non-institutionalized population of the United States based on the cross-sectional population-based study, the National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2176 participants (20–69 years of age). Normal audiometric thresholds were defined by pure-tone average (PTA4) of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz ≤ 25 dBHL in each ear. Hearing difficulty (HD) and tinnitus perception was self-reported. Of the 2176 participants with complete data, 2015 had normal audiometric thresholds based on PTA4; the prevalence of individuals with normal PTA4 that self-reported HD was 15%. The percentage of individuals with normal audiometric threshold and persistent tinnitus was 10.6%. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and hearing thresholds identified the following variables related to increased odds of HD: tinnitus, balance issues, noise exposure, arthritis, vision difficulties, neuropathic symptoms, physical/mental/emotional issues; and for increased odds or reported persistent tinnitus: HD, diabetes, arthritis, vision difficulties, confusion/memory issues, balance issues, noise exposure, high alcohol consumption, neuropathic symptoms and analgesic use. Analyses using an alternative definition of normal hearing, pure-tone thresholds ≤25 dBHL at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 kHz in each ear, revealed lower prevalence of HD and tinnitus, but comparable multivariate relationships. The findings suggest that prevalence of HD is dependent on how normal hearing is defined and the factors that impact odds of reported HD include tinnitus, noise exposure, mental/cognitive status, and other sensory deficits.

Self-Reported Hearing Difficulty Versus Audiometric Screening in Younger and Older Smokers and Nonsmokers

BackgroundThe high incidence of age-related hearing loss demands accessible, low cost hearing screenings for prevention and hearing health promotion. This study assessed performance of self report (SR) against audiometry, and prevalence of hearing difficulty when screening hearing in middle-aged and younger adults, including smokers and nonsmokers.MethodsProspective participants (N = 219) completed a questionnaire providing biographical, health, and smoking information. Their Yes/No responses about hearing or communication difficulty provided data for self-reported hearing loss. Eligible (N = 170) participants received a hearing test including immittance, pure-tone, and speech audiometry. The binaural pure-tone average (PTA) hearing threshold was determined; PTA decibel (dB) level indicated degree (e.g., mild) of hearing loss. All hearing screening data were coded and initially analyzed in an Access database. Statistical analyses based on conditional probability included measures of prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the SR versus audiometric measures. Participants provided a urine sample for biochemical analysis to confirm smoker/nonsmoker status.ResultsAmong all participants (N = 170), overall prevalence of self-reported hearing difficulty (15.9%) was in excellent agreement with measured, mild hearing loss (16.5%). However, factoring in age and smoking revealed that SR was incongruent with audiometry because hearing loss was overestimated by smokers and younger participants and underestimated by middle-aged individuals. The SR question yielded high specificity (80-90%) overall. Specificity was highest in nonsmokers (89-94%) and younger (90-91%) individuals with lower performance in smokers and middle-aged participants. SR sensitivity was high (86-100%) only when the hearing impairment cutoff was > 40 dB (moderate loss) and > 60 dB (severe loss). Sensitivity was highest in smokers (100%), supporting SR for screenings. High negative and low positive predictive value (PPV) occurred in smokers, younger, and middle-aged persons. This study reports new sensitivity and specificity data on self-reported hearing difficulty in smokers (N = 98), younger (N = 80), and middle-aged (N = 90) adults, indicating efficacy of SR as an adult hearing screening measure.ConclusionsSR was effective as few normal-hearing persons were labeled “hearing-impaired”. However, audiometry should supplement SR to optimize detection of mild hearing loss for at-risk adults. Results may guide community health initiatives for hearing screenings, prevention, and health promotion.KeywordsAging; Smoking; Self Report; Health Promotion; Hearing Screening

Impact of hearing difficulty on dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) and mortality: A 3-year cohort study of community-dwelling Japanese older adults

Studies have associated hearing impairment with adverse health outcomes, but the actual impact of hearing difficulty has been barely investigated. We investigated among older adults (i) the prevalence of hearing difficulty, (ii) the association of hearing difficulty with a composite outcome of dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) and death, and (iii) the population attributable risk fraction (PAF) of hearing difficulty. In 2005, a home-visit survey of 1364 Japanese older adults aged ≥65 (participation proportion = 95.5%) was conducted to evaluate self-reports of hearing difficulty. Over 3 years, 99.4% of the initial sample was followed. Outcomes were measured by incidence of death or dependence in ADL. In the sample, the prevalence of hearing difficulty was 17.7% (age ≥65) and 25.7% (age ≥75). Hearing difficulty at high levels was associated with a composite outcome of dependence in ADL and mortality (adjusted odds ratio = OR and 95% confidence interval = 95% CI = 6.19 (1.92–19.92)) as well as with each outcome independently. Improving the hearing difficulty from high to moderate or no difficulty would reduce the composite outcome in 4.3% (age ≥65) and in 6.3% (age ≥75) of the target population. In conclusion, hearing difficulty was common, was associated with and had substantial impact on adverse health outcomes.

The epidemiology of hearing problems: how should we investigate it?

Within published reports, the prevalence of reported hearing difficulties is quite variable. In the present study, we have considered factors that could influence the apparent prevalence of hearing difficulties in the Welsh population, surveyed in a number of different studies. The first important factor to emerge was whether the questions were asked in the context of a general health approach (together with questions about other aspects of health), in which case the prevalence was usually less than 15%. When the same questions were posed in conjunction with a number of other questions on auditory function the prevalence was 20% or greater. Secondly, when a household survey approach is used, with one person being asked to respond on behalf of all members of the household, the prevalence among those reporting is markedly higher than among the other members of the household whose problems they are reporting.