Dataset Information

Screening for Hearing Impairment in Older Adults by Smartphone-Based Audiometry, Self-Perception, HHIE Screening Questionnaire, and Free-Field Voice Test: Comparative Evaluation of the Screening Accuracy With Standard Pure-Tone Audiometry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hearing impairment is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans, affecting more than 360 million people worldwide. In fact, hearing impairment is not merely a health problem, but it also has a great impact on the educational performance, economic income, and quality of life. Hearing impairment is therefore an important social concern.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-perception, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire, free-field voice test, and smartphone-based audiometry as tests for screening moderate hearing impairment in older adults in China.

Methods

In this study, 41 patients were recruited through a single otology practice. All patients were older than 65 years. Patients with otorrhea and cognitive impairment were excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as mean hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz >40 dB hearing loss (pure-tone average > 40 dB hearing loss). All patients completed 5 hearing tests, namely, the self-perception test, HHIE-S questionnaire test, free-field voice test, smartphone-based audiometry test, and standard pure-tone audiometry by the same audiologist. We compared the results of these tests to the standard audiogram in the better-hearing ear.

Results

The sensitivity and the specificity of the self-perception test were 0.58 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.54), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the HHIE-S questionnaire test were 0.67 (95% CI 0.35-0.89) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.316-0.51), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the free-field voice test were 0.83 (95% CI 0.51-0.97) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.61), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the smartphone-based audiometry test were 0.92 (95% CI 0.60-0.99) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.56-0.89), respectively. Smartphone-based audiometry correctly diagnosed the presence of hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity.

Conclusions

Smartphone-based audiometry may be a dependable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment in the older population.

SUBMITTER: Li LYJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7655471 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for Hearing Impairment in Older Adults by Smartphone-Based Audiometry, Self-Perception, HHIE Screening Questionnaire, and Free-Field Voice Test: Comparative Evaluation of the Screening Accuracy With Standard Pure-Tone Audiometry.

Li Lok Yee Joyce LYJ Wang Shin-Yi SY Wu Cheng-Jung CJ Tsai Cheng-Yu CY Wu Te-Fang TF Lin Yaoh-Shiang YS

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20201027 10

<h4>Background</h4>Hearing impairment is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans, affecting more than 360 million people worldwide. In fact, hearing impairment is not merely a health problem, but it also has a great impact on the educational performance, economic income, and quality of life. Hearing impairment is therefore an important social concern.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-perception, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE- ...[more]

PMID: 33107828

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hearing loss (HL) is a frequent problem among the elderly and has been studied in many cohort studies. However, pure tone audiometry-the gold standard-is rather time-consuming and costly for large population-based studies. We have investigated if self-reported hearing loss, using a multiple choice question, can be used to assess HL in absence of pure tone audiometry. METHODS:This study was performed within 4,906 participants of the Rotterdam Study. The question (in Dutch) that was investigated was: 'Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?'. The answer options were: 'never', 'sometimes', 'often' and 'daily'. Mild hearing loss or worse was defined as PTA0.5-4(Pure Tone Average 0.5, 1, 2 & 4 kHz) ≥20dBHL and moderate HL or worse as ≥35dBHL. A univariable linear regression model was fitted with the PTA0.5-4 and the answer to the question. Subsequently, sex, age and education were added in a multivariable linear regression model. The ability of the question to classify HL, accounting for sex, age and education, was explored through logistic regression models creating prediction estimates, which were plotted in ROC curves. RESULTS:The variance explained (R2) by the univariable regression was 0.37, which increased substantially after adding age (R2 = 0.60). The addition of sex and educational level, however, did not alter the R2 (0.61). The ability of the question to classify hearing loss, reflected in the area under the curve (AUC), was 0.70 (95% CI 0.68, 0.71) for mild hearing loss or worse and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85, 0.87) for moderate hearing loss or worse. The AUC increased substantially when sex, education and age were taken into account (AUC mild HL: 0.73 (95%CI 0.71, 0.75); moderate HL 0.90 (95%CI 0.89, 0.91)). CONCLUSION:Self-reported hearing loss using a single question has a good ability to detect hearing loss in older adults, especially when age is accounted for. A single question cannot substitute audiometry, but it can assess hearing loss on a population level with reasonable accuracy.

Project description:ObjectivesCognitive load (CL) impairs listeners' ability to comprehend sentences, recognize words, and identify speech sounds. Recent findings suggest that this effect originates in a disruption of low-level perception of acoustic details. Here, we attempted to quantify such a disruption by measuring the effect of CL (a two-back task) on pure-tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds. We also asked whether the effect of CL on PTA was greater in older adults, on account of their reduced ability to divide cognitive resources between simultaneous tasks. To specify the mechanisms and representations underlying the interface between auditory and cognitive processes, we contrasted CL requiring visual encoding with CL requiring auditory encoding. Finally, the link between the cost of performing PTA under CL, working memory, and speech-in-noise (SiN) perception was investigated and compared between younger and older participants.DesignYounger and older adults (44 in each group) did a PTA test at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz pure tones under CL and no CL. CL consisted of a visual two-back task running throughout the PTA test. The two-back task involved either visual encoding of the stimuli (meaningless images) or subvocal auditory encoding (a rhyme task on written nonwords). Participants also underwent a battery of SiN tests and a working memory test (letter number sequencing).ResultsYounger adults showed elevated PTA thresholds under CL, but only when CL involved subvocal auditory encoding. CL had no effect when it involved purely visual encoding. In contrast, older adults showed elevated thresholds under both types of CL. When present, the PTA CL cost was broadly comparable in younger and older adults (approximately 2 dB HL). The magnitude of PTA CL cost did not correlate significantly with SiN perception or working memory in either age group. In contrast, PTA alone showed strong links to both SiN and letter number sequencing in older adults.ConclusionsThe results show that CL can exert its effect at the level of hearing sensitivity. However, in younger adults, this effect is only found when CL involves auditory mental representations. When CL involves visual representations, it has virtually no impact on hearing thresholds. In older adults, interference is found in both conditions. The results suggest that hearing progresses from engaging primarily modality-specific cognition in early adulthood to engaging cognition in a more undifferentiated way in older age. Moreover, hearing thresholds measured under CL did not predict SiN perception more accurately than standard PTA thresholds.

Project description:Different guidelines are adopted in clinics and countries to assess pure tone hearing sensitivity in children with otitis media with effusion (OME). Some guidelines specify a broad range of audiometric frequencies that must be tested and from which average thresholds determined, while others leave test frequencies unspecified. For guidelines that suggest specific frequencies there are various pure tone frequencies and frequency ranges given. The present study investigated whether (1) a full range of audiometric frequencies is required to evaluate hearing loss caused by OME in children, or if neighboring frequencies provide essentially the same threshold information, and (2) if different combinations of test frequency pure tone averaging calculations may affect decision criteria for surgical treatment. In a retrospective cohort study, right and left ear air conduction pure tone threshold data were obtained, from 125 Hz to 8 kHz, for 96 children with OME aged 4 to 12 years. Paired t-tests, correlation tests (Pearson's r, Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation) and absolute differences were used to examine the relationships among pure tone audiometric (PTA) frequencies for all ears with hearing loss. 168 ears were found to have OME-related hearing loss. Only the 125 Hz-250 Hz comparison showed no statistically significant difference between neighboring thresholds. However, only the 4 kHz and 8 kHz comparison showed a clinically significant mean difference of ≥ 10 dB. When viewing individual differences, comparison between 250 Hz and 500 Hz, 125 Hz and 500 Hz, and 4 kHz and 8 kHz, showed a large number of ears with clinically significant differences between test frequencies. Comparisons among low frequency 3 PTA average (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz), high frequency 3 PTA average (1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz), and 4 frequency PTA average (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz) showed no statistically significant differences, with very strong correlations for all comparisons. In addition, for all the combinations of PTA averages, no clinically significant differences were found for the various comparisons or among individual results. Clinically, testing hearing sensitivity in the 125 Hz to 8 kHz range is worthwhile in evaluating hearing sensitivity in children with OME due to large individual variability across audiometric frequencies. However, frequencies tested for criterion averages for surgical treatments of children with OME may be restricted to 3 frequency PTA averages, either an average of 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz or an average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz, as no clinically significant differences were found using these or a 4 frequency averaging technique. For research purposes, 250 Hz can proxy for hearing thresholds at 125 Hz; and the low frequency 3 PTA average, high frequency 3 PTA average and 4 frequency PTA average may be used interchangeably, as no statistically significant differences were found among these measures.

Project description:ImportanceAge-adjusted prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) decreased across generations in the 20th century, suggesting that HI is partially preventable. It is not known whether HI incidence differs by generation.ObjectivesTo examine whether HI incidence and change in pure-tone average (PTA) differ by generation and identify factors underlying these differences.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study (EHLS) and Beaver Dam Offspring Study (BOSS), a pair of studies of adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Baseline examinations occurred from 1993 to 1995 in the EHLS and 2005 to 2008 in BOSS, with two 5-year follow-up examinations in each cohort. This longitudinal cohort study assessed 3651 participants without HI at baseline who had follow-up data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was incident HI measured by pure-tone audiometry, defined as PTA greater than 25-dB hearing level (dB HL) in either ear. Associations of 5-year incidence were estimated by relative risks (RRs) and 10-year cumulative incidence with generation, as categorized by commonly used sociodemographic descriptors of year of birth, by hazard ratios (HRs). The 10-year change in PTA was investigated using a generation × time interaction term in generalized estimating equation models.ResultsAmong the 3651 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline 53.1 [10.6] years; 2255 [61.8%] female; and 3567 [97.7%] non-Hispanic White), the 5-year HI incidence was 14.1% (95% CI, 13.0%-15.3%) and the 10-year cumulative incidence was 26.0% (95% CI, 24.6%-27.6%). The incidence increased with age. The risk of 5-year incident HI decreased by generation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) when adjusting for multiple covariates. The decreased risk was similar in the 10-year period (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01). The PTA change rate (per 5 years of follow-up) decreased by generation, with the Greatest Generation (born 1901-1924) experiencing the highest rate (7.03 dB HL). The rates were all significantly lower for the other generations (Silent Generation [born 1925-1945], 3.30 dB HL; Baby Boom Generation [born 1946-1964], 3.36 dB HL; and Generation X [born 1965-1984], 2.33 dB HL).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that the risk of HI and rate of PTA change is lower for the Silent Generation and Baby Boom Generation compared with the Greatest Generation. Part of this lower risk is likely associated with changes in modifiable factors. A potential continued benefit may exist for Generation X. Combined with the reduced risk of HI for the Silent Generation and Baby Boom Generation, this finding implies that the future HI burden may be lower than current estimates suggest.

Dataset Information

Screening for Hearing Impairment in Older Adults by Smartphone-Based Audiometry, Self-Perception, HHIE Screening Questionnaire, and Free-Field Voice Test: Comparative Evaluation of the Screening Accuracy With Standard Pure-Tone Audiometry.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Screening for Hearing Impairment in Older Adults by Smartphone-Based Audiometry, Self-Perception, HHIE Screening Questionnaire, and Free-Field Voice Test: Comparative Evaluation of the Screening Accuracy With Standard Pure-Tone Audiometry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets