Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Adoption by Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M. Weycker ◽  
Lauren K. Dillard ◽  
Alex Pinto ◽  
Mary E. Fischer ◽  
Karen J. Cruickshanks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Beaver Dam ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Hearing loss (HL) is common among middle-age and older adults, but hearing aid adoption is low. The purpose of this study was to measure the 10-year incidence of hearing aid adoption in a sample of primarily middle-age adults with high-frequency HL and identify factors associated with hearing aid adoption. Method This study included 579 adults (ages 34–80 years) with high-frequency pure-tone average > 25 dB HL (3–8 kHz) enrolled in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study. Hearing aid adoption was measured at 5- and 10-year follow-up examinations. Cox discrete-time proportional hazards models were used to evaluate factors associated with hearing aid adoption (presented as hazards ratios [HRs] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). Results The 10-year cumulative incidence of hearing aid adoption was 14 per 1,000 person years. Factors significantly associated with adoption in a multivariable model were higher education (vs. 16+ years; 0–12: HR: 0.36, 95% CI [0.19, 0.69]; 13–15: HR: 0.52, 95% CI [0.27, 0.98]), worse high-frequency pure-tone average (per +1 dB; HR: 1.04, 95% CI [1.02, 1.06]), self-reported hearing handicap (screening versions of the Hearing Handicap Inventory score > 8; HR: 1.85, 95% CI [1.02, 3.38]), answering yes to “Do friends and relatives think you have a hearing problem?” (HR: 3.18, 95% CI [1.60, 6.33]) and using closed captions (HR: 2.86, 95% CI [1.08, 7.57]). Effects of age and sex were not significant. Conclusions Hearing aid adoption rates were low. Hearing sensitivity, socioeconomic status, and measures of the impact of HL on daily life were associated with adoption. Provider awareness of associated factors can contribute to timely and appropriate intervention.

Hearing Loss and Hearing Handicap in Users of Recreational Firearms

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 160-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Stewart ◽  
Rebecca Pankiw ◽  
Mark E. Lehman ◽  
Thomas H. Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
American Academy ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Occupational Safety ◽  
Occupational Safety And Health ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
The Self ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
Hearing Handicap

This investigation sought to establish the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing handicap in a population of 232 recreational firearm users. Hearing handicap was calculated based on four methods using pure-tone threshold data from the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and American Speech-Language and Hearing Association in addition to the self-report Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults-Screener (HHIA-S). Subjects (45 female and 187 male) ranging in age from 13 to 77 years (mean = 40 years, SD = 15.1) completed a short questionnaire regarding demographics and shooting practices followed by pure-tone air audiometry at Occupational Safety and Health Administration test frequencies of 500 to 6000 Hz. A total of 177 who exhibited varying degrees of hearing loss also received a face-to-face administration of the HHIA-S. Audiometric and HHIA-S results revealed that both high-frequency hearing loss and hearing handicap varied significantly as functions of age and occupation. Significant gender effects were observed audiometrically but not as a function of hearing handicap. HHIA-S scores varied significantly as a function of high-frequency (1000–4000 Hz) hearing loss. Correlation coefficients between the four different pure-tone methods of calculating hearing handicap and the self-reported HHIA-S were highest for pure-tone methods that do not employ 500 Hz in the calculation.

Perceived Hearing Handicap of Patients with Unilateral or Mild Hearing Loss

1997 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig W. Newman ◽  
Gerald A. Hug ◽  
Gary P. Jacobson ◽  
Sharon A. Sandridge
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Intersubject Variability ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
The Individual

Using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA), we assessed self-perceived hearing handicap in a sample of 63 patients having either unilaterally normal hearing or a mild hearing loss (pure tone average ≤40 dB hearing level). Large intersubject variability in responses to the HHIA confirmed observations that reactions to minimal hearing impairment vary greatly among patients. The individual differences in responses highlight the importance of quantifying the perceived communication and psychosocial handicap, which cannot be determined from the audiogram alone. An item examination of responses to the HHIA revealed a number of emotional and social-situational problems encountered by patients with minimal hearing loss.

scholarly journals Comparison of Pure-Tone Average Methods for Estimation of Hearing Loss Caused by Environmental Exposure to Lead and Cadmium: Does the Pure-Tone Average Method Which Uses Low-Frequency Ranges Underestimate the Actual Hearing Loss Caused by Environmental Lead and Cadmium Exposure?

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 259-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Da-An Huh ◽  
Yun-Hee Choi ◽  
Myung Sun Ji ◽  
Kyong Whan Moon ◽  
Seok J. Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Environmental Exposure ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Cadmium Exposure ◽  
Metal Exposure ◽  
Frequency Method ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Lead And Cadmium

Previous studies have reported that exposure to lead and cadmium can damage the inner ear receptor, which perceives high-frequency sounds. However, few studies have used the pure-tone average (PTA), including high-frequency ranges, for the estimation of hearing loss caused by lead and cadmium exposure. We estimated hearing loss using the PTA test, in low-frequency, speech frequency, and high-frequency ranges and compared the differences in the results using 3 PTA calculation methods. We analyzed the data of 2,387 participants, between the ages of 19 and 85 years, that were obtained from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) of 2010–2012. A dose-response relationship between hearing loss and heavy metal exposure was observed in the high-frequency method after adjustment for confounding factors. When using the high-frequency PTA, it was found that doubling of the levels of lead and cadmium in the blood was associated with a 1.88- (95% CI 1.11–3.17) and 1.89-fold (95% CI 1.02–3.50) increase in the OR for hearing loss. In the case of the low-frequency and speech frequency PTA, however, there were no significant relationships between hearing loss and the concentrations of lead and cadmium in the blood. The outcomes of the present study suggest that the estimation of hearing loss caused by environmental exposure to lead and cadmium is affected by the frequencies used in the PTA calculation.

Can audiometric results predict qualitative hearing improvements in bone-anchored hearing aid recipients?

2013 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
M L McNeil ◽  
M Gulliver ◽  
D P Morris ◽  
F M Makki ◽  
M Bance
Keyword(s):  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Subjective Evaluation ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Pure Tone Average ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractIntroduction:Patients receiving a bone-anchored hearing aid have well-documented improvements in their quality of life and audiometric performance. However, the relationship between audiometric measurements and subjective improvement is not well understood.Methods:Adult patients enrolled in the Nova Scotia bone-anchored hearing aid programme were identified. The pure tone average for fitting the sound-field threshold, as well as the better and worse hearing ear bone conduction and air conduction levels, were collected pre-operatively. Recipients were asked to complete the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire; their partners were asked to complete a pre- and post-bone anchored hearing aid fitting Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire.Results:Forty-eight patients who completed and returned the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire had partners who completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire. The results from the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing questionnaire correlated with the sound-field hearing threshold post-bone-anchored hearing aid fitting and the pure tone average of the better hearing ear bone conduction (total Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale to the pre-operative better hearing ear air curve (r = 0.3); worse hearing ear air curve (r = 0.27); post-operative, bone-anchored hearing aid-aided sound-field thresholds (r = 0.35)). An improvement in sound-field threshold correlated only with spatial abilities. In the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults questionnaire, there was no correlation between the subjective evaluation of each patient and their partner.Conclusion:The subjective impressions of hearing aid recipients with regards to speech reception and the spatial qualities of hearing correlate well with pre-operative audiometric results. However, the overall magnitude of sound-field improvement predicts an improvement of spatial perception, but not other aspects of hearing, resulting in hearing aid recipients having strongly disparate subjective impressions when compared to those of their partners.

scholarly journals Investigation of Tinnitus Patients in Italy: Clinical and Audiological Characteristics

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Martines ◽  
Daniela Bentivegna ◽  
Fabiola Di Piazza ◽  
Enrico Martines ◽  
Vincenzo Sciacca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
High Frequencies ◽  
Tinnitus Severity ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Neural Connection ◽  
The Impact

Objective. 312 tinnitus sufferers were studied in order to analyze: the clinical characteristics of tinnitus; the presence of tinnitus-age correlation and tinnitus-hearing loss correlation; the impact of tinnitus on subjects' life and where possible the etiological/predisposing factors of tinnitus.Results. There is a slight predominance of males. The highest percentage of tinnitus results in the decades 61–70. Of the tinnitus sufferers, 197 (63.14%) have a hearing deficit (light hearing loss in 37.18% of cases). The hearing impairment results of sensorineural type in 74.62% and limited to the high frequencies in 58.50%. The tinnitus is referred as unilateral in 59.93%, a pure tone in 66.99% and 10 dB above the hearing threshold in 37.7%. It is limited to high frequencies in 72.10% of the patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) while the 88.37% of the patients with high-frequency SNHL have a high-pitched tinnitus ( ).Conclusion. Hearing status and age represent the principal tinnitus related factors; there is a statistically significant association between high-pitched tinnitus and high-frequency SNHL. There is no significant correlation between tinnitus severity and tinnitus loudness confirming the possibility that neural connection involved in evoking tinnitus-related negative reactions are governed by conditioned reflexes.

scholarly journals Longitudinal Tracking of Sound Exposure and Hearing Aid Usage through Objective Data Logs

2018 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-116
Author(s):  
John B. Doyle ◽  
Rohit R. Raghunathan ◽  
Ilana Cellum ◽  
Gen Li ◽  
Justin S. Golub
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Sound Exposure ◽  
Pure Tone Average

Objective To use data-logging technology to objectively track and identify predictors of hearing aid (HA) usage and aided sound exposure. Study Design Case series with planned data collection. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Subjects and Methods Individuals with HAs between 2007 and 2016 were included (N = 431; mean, 74.6 years; 95% CI, 73.1-76.0). Data-logging technology intrinsic to new-generation HAs was enabled to track usage and sound exposure. With multivariable linear regression, age, sex, number of audiology visits, duration of audiologic follow-up, pure tone average, and HA side were assessed as predictors of usage (hours/day) and aided sound exposure (dB-hours/day; ie, “dose” of sound per day). Results Mean follow-up was 319 days (95% CI, 277-360). Mean HA usage was 8.4 hours/day (95% CI, 8.0-8.8; N = 431). Mean aided sound exposure was 440 dB-hours/day (95% CI, 385-493; n = 110). HA use (β < 0.001, P = .45) and aided sound exposure (β = −0.006, P = .87) were both stable over time. HA usage was associated only with hearing loss level (pure tone average; β = 0.030, P = .04). Aided sound exposure was associated only with duration of audiologic follow-up (β = 0.100, P = .02). Conclusion While measurement of HA use has traditionally relied on subjective reporting, data logging offers an objective tool to longitudinally track HA use and sound exposure. We demonstrate the feasibility of using this potentially powerful research tool. Usage and sound exposure were stable among patients throughout the study period. Use was greater among subjects with greater hearing loss. Maximizing aided sound exposure might be possible through continued audiology follow-up visits.

The Impact of Minimal to Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Adults

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina M. Roup
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Pure Tone Audiogram ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the pure-tone audiogram and the categorization of normal hearing or a mild hearing loss fails to account for other important non-audiometric factors that impact hearing ability for approximately one-third of adults. In order to obtain a complete hearing profile of our patients who present with normal hearing or a mild hearing loss, it is necessary to consider more than simply the results of the pure-tone audiogram. Both subjective hearing handicap via questionnaire and suprathreshold auditory measures (especially in background noise) have been shown to be sensitive to deficits not captured by the pure-tone audiogram. Viable treatment options with demonstrated benefit, such as mild-gain amplification, should be considered for this population.

A Comparison of Gain for Adults from Generic Hearing Aid Prescriptive Methods: Impacts on Predicted Loudness, Frequency Bandwidth, and Speech Intelligibility

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (07) ◽  
pp. 441-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl E. Johnson ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Frequency Bandwidth ◽  
Software Application ◽  
Index Model ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Loudness Model ◽  
The Impact

Background: Prescriptive methods have been at the core of modern hearing aid fittings for the past several decades. Every decade or so, there have been revisions to existing methods and/or the emergence of new methods that become widely used. In 2001 Byrne et al provided a comparison of insertion gain for generic prescriptive methods available at that time. Purpose: The purpose of this article was to compare National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 1 (NAL-NL1), National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 2 (NAL-NL2), Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output (DSL m[i/o]), and Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2—High-Frequency (CAMEQ2-HF) prescriptive methods for adults on the amplification characteristics of prescribed insertion gain and compression ratio. Following the differences observed in prescribed insertion gain among the four prescriptive methods, analyses of predicted specific loudness, overall loudness, and bandwidth of cochlear excitation and effective audibility as well as speech intelligibility of the international long-term average speech spectrum (ILTASS) at an average conversational input level were completed. These analyses allow for the discussion of similarities and differences among the present-day prescriptive methods. Research Design: The impact of insertion gain differences among the methods is examined for seven hypothetical hearing loss configurations using models of loudness perception and speech intelligibility. Study Sample: Hearing loss configurations for adults of various types and degrees were selected, five of which represent sensorineural impairment and were used by Byrne et al; the other two hearing losses provide an example of mixed and conductive impairment. Data Collection and Analysis: Prescribed insertion gain data were calculated in 1/3-octave frequency bands for each of the seven hearing losses from the software application of each prescriptive method over multiple input levels. The insertion gain data along with a diffuse field-to-eardrum transfer function were used to calculate output levels at the eardrums of the hypothetical listeners. Levels of hearing loss and output were then used in the Moore and Glasberg loudness model and the ANSI S3.5-1997 Speech Intelligibility Index model. Results: NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] provided comparable overall loudness of approximately 8 sones for the five sensorineural hearing losses for a 65 dB SPL ILTASS input. This loudness was notably less than that perceived by a normal-hearing person for the same input signal, 18.6 sones. NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] also provided comparable predicted speech intelligibility in quiet and noise. CAMEQ2-HF provided a greater average loudness, similar to NAL-NL1, with more high-frequency bandwidth but no significant improvement to predicted speech intelligibility. Conclusions: Definite variation in prescribed insertion gain was present among the prescriptive methods. These differences when averaged across the hearing losses were, by and large, negligible with regard to predicted speech intelligibility at normal conversational speech levels. With regard to loudness, DSL m[i/o] and NAL-NL2 provided the least overall loudness, followed by CAMEQ2-HF and NAL-NL1 providing the most loudness. CAMEQ2-HF provided the most audibility at high frequencies; even so, the audibility became less effective for improving speech intelligibility as hearing loss severity increased.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Modified Earpieces and CROS for High Frequency Hearing Losses

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dodds ◽  
Earl Harford
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Intensity Level ◽  
Test Results ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Increased Sensitivity ◽  
Difficult Cases

Persons with a high frequency hearing loss are difficult cases for whom to find suitable amplification. We have experienced some success with this problem in our Hearing Clinics using a specially designed earmold with a hearing aid. Thirty-five cases with high frequency hearing losses were selected from our clinical files for analysis of test results using standard, vented, and open earpieces. A statistical analysis of test results revealed that PB scores in sound field, using an average conversational intensity level (70 dB SPL), were enhanced when utilizing any one of the three earmolds. This result was due undoubtedly to increased sensitivity provided by the hearing aid. Only the open earmold used with a CROS hearing aid resulted in a significant improvement in discrimination when compared with the group’s unaided PB score under earphones or when comparing inter-earmold scores. These findings suggest that the inclusion of the open earmold with a CROS aid in the audiologist’s armamentarium should increase his flexibility in selecting hearing aids for persons with a high frequency hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document