Prevalence Of Hearing Disability Research Articles

The effective screening tools for detecting hearing loss in elderly population: HHIE-ST Versus TSQ

BackgroundGlobally increasing number of elders is concerned. Hearing loss process in older adults cannot be avoided. An effective screening tool for hearing loss is essential for proper diagnosis and rehabilitation, which can improve QOL in older adults.MethodsThis prospective-diagnostic test study evaluates the diagnostic value of Thai version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Screening (HHIE-ST) and the Thai Single Question (TSQ) surveys in screening hearing disability in 1109 Thai participants aged 60 years and older in communities in four provinces in Thailand. The HHIE-ST consisted of 10 selected questions from the validated HHIE-Thai version. A TSQ survey was developed to have the same meaning as an English Single Question survey. The participants answered both questionnaires, and a standard audiometry test assessed with air conduction from 250 to 8000 Hz was included as a gold standard.ResultsThe prevalence of hearing disability was 38.34%. The HHIE-ST achieved a sensitivity of 88.96% (95% CI 85.77–91.64) and specificity of 52.19% (95% CI 48.24–56.13) for diagnosis hearing disability in Thai older adults, whereas the TSQ yielded a sensitivity of 88.73% and a specificity of 55.93%. A combined test including the HHIE-ST and TSQ achieved better performance with sensitivity of 85.29% and specificity of 60.13%.ConclusionsEither the HHIE-ST or the TSQ is a sensitive and useful tool for screening hearing disability in Thai older adults. Using the HHIE-ST together with the TSQ resulted in a better screening tool for detecting moderate hearing loss older adults who will benefit and recommended for hearing rehabilitation.Trial registrationThe study is registered with the following number in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20151015003. Date of registration October 14, 2015.

Prevalence and determinants of hearing disability among older persons in Malaysia: Finding of National Health Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2018.

An aging population is a potential burden for unprepared developing countries. Malaysia is foreseen to be an aging country by 2035. Thus, this study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors associated with hearing disability among older persons in Malaysia. Data from a nationwide survey implemented using a stratified cluster sampling design were analyzed. This study was carried out through face-to-face interviews and guided questionnaires. The questions were based on the Washington Group of Disability (WG) questionnaires, which produce multiple disability identifiers. Hearing disability is defined as at least one domain or question out of four questions coded as "A lot of difficulty" or "Cannot hear at all". The prevalence of hearing disability among older persons aged ≥60 years was 6.4% (95% CI 5.0-8.3), whereas 1.5% (95% CI 0.90, 2.50) older persons were reported to be using a hearing aid. The determinants of hearing disability are being male (aOR 2.67, 95% CI 1.94-3.66), being unemployed (retired, homemaker, unemployed; aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.86-4.14) and had no formal education (aOR 18.25, 95% CI 4.18-79.55). Promoting healthy aging is important and crucial for Malaysia, in preparation toward an aging nation, as it could reduce the country's financial burden in the long term. Health-related agencies should promote health awareness and treatment centers in relation to hearing disability among older persons, as they should be educated and informed about healthcare choices availability, which is aligned with the Global Disability Action Plan 2014-2021. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 43-48.

A Report of WHO Ear and Hearing Disorders Survey in Guizhou Province

ObjectiveTo report a population–based survey on the prevalence, pathogenic factors and medical needs of ear diseases and hearing loss. MethodsUsing the probability proportion to size (PPS) method, 6626 residents were investigated in 30 clusters in accordance with the WHO protocol. ResultsThe prevalence of hearing loss was 17.1%(compatible with the natioanal standardized rate of 17.6%), including mild (11.0%), moderate (4.2%), severe (1.4%), and profound (0.5%) impairment. Of the 1131 individuals with hearing loss, 663 (20.2%) were male and 468 (14.0%) were female. The prevalence of hearing disability was 6.1%(again compatible with the national standardized rate of 6.5%). The causes of hearing loss were ear diseases (31.4%), non–infectious ear disorders (42.5%), genetic disorders (6.7%), infectious disease (0.4%) and undetermined causes (29.3%). Of the hearing impaired people, 13.8% needed otologic and/or audiologic interventions and 9.1% needed hearing aids. ConclusionThe prevalence of hearing loss and hearing disability have increased in the past twenty years. The data provide important information for authorities in formulating policies for prevention and management of deafness.

The impact of hearing disability on well-being and health.

The aim of the paper is to assess the significance of hearing disability as a public health problem through its association with multiple negative health outcomes: subjective health perception, mental health and social well-being. The data come from the participants of the 1997 national health survey in Belgium, who were 15 years and older (n = 8,560). The presence and severity of the hearing disability was estimated through self-reporting. The association of hearing disability with the studied health outcomes was assessed using logistic regression while controlling for confounding factors such as age, sex, co-morbidity and socio-economic status. The prevalence of hearing disability is 7% in the population 15 years and older. The prevalence of subjective ill health (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.32), mental ill health (OR: 1.51), and a low appreciation of the social contacts (OR: 1.73) was higher in subjects with hearing disability. No association was found between hearing disability and the frequency of social contacts or with the functional content of the social contacts. Given the health and social consequences of hearing disability, increased public health attention, including both strategies for prevention, for identification and treatment, is warranted.

Hearing disability in people aged 50-65: effectiveness and acceptability of rehabilitative intervention.

To determine the best means of detecting hearing disability in subjects aged 50-65 and whether rehabilitative intervention is acceptable in this age group. Questionnaire survey of patients on general practice age-sex registers. Two types of questionnaire were used, one being based on the closed set approach of the Institute of Hearing Research questionnaire, which had been used in a pilot study, and the other being a simplified version of this questionnaire developed by the Welsh Hearing Institute and based on open set questions. Questionnaires were sent up to three times, and any patients who had not responded two months after the last posting were personally contacted. Two general practices in Glyncorrwg and Blaengwynfi in the Afan valley, West Glamorgan. 271 Patients in Glyncorrwg (136 men, 135 women) and 333 patients in Blaengwynfi (173 men, 160 women) aged 50-65. All patients indicating hearing disability in answering the questionnaires were invited to attend for a evaluative session in their village. After audiometric testing advice and arrangements for fitting a hearing aid were offered as appropriate. Response rates and prevalence of hearing disability before intervention and of possession of hearing aids before and after intervention. After three postings and personal contact the response rate was 98% (266/271) in Glyncorrwg, where the complex questionnaire was used, and 97% (322/333) in Blaengwynfi. The prevalence of hearing disability was respectively 53% (141/266) and 46% (148/322) and the prevalence of owning a hearing aid 7% (19/266) and 8% (24/322). After intervention the possession of hearing aids rose to 24% (64/266) in Glyncorrwg and 22% (71/322) in Blaengwynfi; six months later the aids were being used regularly. A direct comparison of the two questionnaires in 69 subjects from Blaengwynfi showed no significant differences in the amount of disability detected by each one. The first posting of questionnaires detected 65% (189/289) of the hearing disability in the two villages or 78% (72/92) of those prepared to accept hearing aids for the first time; 96% (88/92) of those who accepted hearing aids were detected by two postings. Simple questionnaires are effective in detecting hearing disabilities in people aged 50-65, and intervention was acceptable in many of those who reported having difficulties in hearing. The response rates from successive postings suggest that two postings are sufficient in terms of the return in detecting those who will accept intervention.