UNASSIGNED: Describe how the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) changes over time and determine associated factors.
UNASSIGNED: Data were from a community-based cohort study. Linear regression models were used to estimate mean baseline and final RHHI scores and change (final minus baseline score). Logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with substantial RHHI change, defined as ±6 points. Factors included baseline age, sex, race, hearing aid use, and baseline pure-tone average (PTA; 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz, worse ear).
UNASSIGNED: This study included 583 participants (mean age: 66.4 [SD 9.1] years; 59.9% female; 14.2% Minority race) with a mean follow-up time of 7.6 (SD 4.9) years.
UNASSIGNED: Baseline and final RHHI scores were 7.9 and 9.2 points, corresponding to an average 1.3-point increase in hearing difficulty over time. Most participants (65.4%) did not show substantial RHHI change, whereas 21.4% and 13.2% experienced substantial increase and decrease, respectively. In separate multivariable models, PTA and hearing aid use were associated with substantial increase in hearing difficulty, and PTA was associated with substantial decrease.
UNASSIGNED: The average RHHI change was relatively small. Hearing aid use and PTA were associated with RHHI change.

UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to obtain an understanding of audiologists\' knowledge of Spanish speech perception materials for the paediatric hearing loss population.
UNASSIGNED: An electronic survey, the Knowledge of Spanish Audiology & Speech Tools (KSAST) was distributed via Qualtrics to audiologists who worked with Spanish-speaking children.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred and fifty-three audiologists practicing in the United States completed the electronic survey over a period of six months.
UNASSIGNED: Audiologists lacked knowledge of current Spanish measures and there was no consensus on what providers were administering for the paediatric population. The largest gaps in knowledge existed for the infancy through early childhood age groups. Notably, even when Spanish measures exist, audiologists reported feeling uncomfortable using them in clinic due to a variety of reasons (e.g., did not know how to access measure, did not know how to administer).
UNASSIGNED: This study highlights the lack of consensus in managing Spanish-speaking patients with hearing loss. There is a lack of validated age-appropriate measures to accurately assess speech perception for Spanish-speaking children. Future research should focus on improving training on management of Spanish-speaking patients, as well as development of speech measures and best practice guidelines for this population.

Evaluate the conceptual framework that age effects on the electrophysiological binaural masking level difference (MLD) are partially mediated by age-related hearing loss and/or global cognitive function via mediation analysis.
Participants underwent a series of audiometric tests. The MLD was measured via cortical auditory evoked potentials using a speech stimulus (/ɑ/) in speech-weighted background noise. We used mediation analyses to determine the total effect, natural direct effects, and natural indirect effects, which are displayed as regression coefficients ([95% CI]; p value).
Twenty-eight individuals aged 19-87 years (mean [SD]: 53.3 [25.2]), recruited from the community.
Older age had a significant total effect on the MLD (-0.69 [95% CI: -0.96, -0.45]; p < 0.01). Neither pure tone average (-0.11 [95% CI: -0.43, 0.24; p = 0.54] nor global cognitive function (-0.02 [95% CI: -0.13, 0.02]; p = 0.55) mediated the relationship of age and the MLD and effect sizes were small. Results were insensitive to use of alternative hearing measures or inclusion of interaction terms.
The electrophysiological MLD may be an age-sensitive measure of binaural temporal processing that is minimally affected by age-related hearing loss and global cognitive function.

We aimed to update the prevalence estimates of hearing loss in older adults in England using a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50 years old and older.
A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented. Hearing loss was defined as ≥35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz, as measured via Hearcheck in the better-hearing ear.
We compared the estimates based on the English census in 2015 to estimates from psychoacoustic hearing data available for 8,263 participants in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Wave 7 (2014-2015).
Marked regional variability in hearing loss prevalence was revealed among participants with similar age profiles. The regional differences in hearing outcomes reached up to 13.53% in those belonging to the 71-80 years old group; the prevalence of hearing loss was 49.22% in the North East of England (95%CI 48.0-50.4), versus 35.69% in the South East (95%CI 34.8-36.50).
A socio-spatial approach in planning sustainable models of hearing care based on the actual populations\' needs and not on age demographics might offer a viable opportunity for healthier lives. Regular assessment of the extent and causality of the population\'s different audiological needs within the country is strongly supported.

Among a representative sample of adults aged 50 years and older too (i) determine the prevalence of hearing loss, (ii) evaluate probable causes and risk factors of hearing loss, and (iii) assess the association between hearing loss measured by audiometry and self-report.
A population-based survey of adults aged 50 and older in Santiago, Chile using the Rapid Assessment of Hearing Loss (RAHL) survey.
538 participants completed a questionnaire, which included questions on socio-demographic and health characteristics and self-reported hearing loss. Hearing and possible cause of hearing loss was assessed using pure tone audiometry (0.5-4.0 kHz), tympanometry, and otoscopy.
The prevalence of any level of hearing loss in adults aged 50 years and older was 41% (95% CI 33.2, 49.2). In terms of aetiologies, 89.3% of ears with mild or worse hearing loss were classified as sensorineural. Otoscopy was abnormal in 10.7% of subjects with impacted earwax being the most common finding (4.4%) followed by chronic otitis media (3.5%). Hearing aid usage was 16.6%. Older age, lower socioeconomic position, lack of education, and solvent exposure were significantly associated with hearing loss.
Hearing loss among individuals aged over 50 years was common in Santiago, Chile.

UNASSIGNED: To estimate the hearing aid coverage for people with disabling hearing loss using data on hearing aid sales.
UNASSIGNED: Data on prevalence of disabling hearing loss from WHO and on hearing loss from moderate to severe from the Global Burden of Disease enterprise are used to estimate the number of people with hearing loss. Data on hearing aid sales from the European Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association (EHIMA) are used to estimate the number of people using hearing aids.
UNASSIGNED: From 2009 to 2018, the worldwide sales of hearing aids by the EHIMA members were 124 million units.
UNASSIGNED: The world-wide hearing aid coverage is 10-11% depending on the prevalence of data source. For all low- to middle-income regions that make up 85% of the world population, the coverage ranges from 1.5% to 12%. In the group of high-income countries as defined by WHO, the coverage is 57%.
UNASSIGNED: Data on hearing aid sales can be used to estimate hearing aid coverage regionally, and world-wide. Globally, there is a huge unmet need for hearing instruments since less than 11% of people with a disabling hearing loss are hearing aid users.

To determine the association between self-reported hearing status and risk of hospitalisation among Chinese middle-aged and older adults.
Prospective cohort study. Discrete-time hazards models and negative binomial models were fitted to examine the relationship.
About 11,902 participants aged 45 years or older with no hospitalisation at baseline.
49.28-62.70% of the participants reported their hearing as fair or poor. For older adults aged 60 and above, compared to people with excellent and very good hearing, those with good, fair or poor hearing reported shorter time to first hospitalisation [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.38, 1.38, 1.63, respectively]. They also manifested greater number of hospitalisations [incident rate ratio (IRR) = 1.21, 1.25, 1.54, respectively], and longer duration of hospitalisation (IRR = 1.36, 1.26, 1.53, respectively). However, there was no significant association between hearing status and hospitalisation for middle-aged adults for none of the hearing categories.
Although no significant relationship between hearing and hospitalisation was found for middle-aged adults, older adults with poorer hearing experienced greater risk of hospitalisation. Given that hearing impairment is highly prevalent among older adults, future analyses are needed to investigate whether hearing rehabilitative therapies could help mitigate hospitalisations in hearing-impaired older adults.

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and incidence of hearing impairment (HI) in a longitudinal setting among adults.
An unscreened, population-based epidemiological 13-year follow-up study. Study sample: 850 randomly sampled 54 to 66-year-old baseline participants, of whom 559 participated in the follow-up study at the age of 68 to 79 years. A questionnaire-based interview, an otological examination and pure-tone audiometry were performed.
The overall prevalence of HI was 70.3%, defined by better ear hearing level (BEHL)  ≥ 20 dB in the 0.5-4 kHz frequency range. The prevalence was higher among men (78.6%) than among women (63.7%). The overall incidence rate for HI was 45.8 per 1000 person years and the 13-year cumulative incidence was 60.9%. The incidence was higher among men and older participants.
HI is highly prevalent and incident among older adults in Northern Finland.

The purpose of this study was to (i) develop a model that predicts hearing aid (HA) use and (ii) determine if model fit is improved by adding factors not typically collected in audiological evaluations.
Two models were created and evaluated. The \"clinical\" model used factors typically collected during audiologic clinical evaluations. The \"expanded\" model considered additional clinical, health and lifestyle factors to determine if the model fit could be improved (compared to clinical model). Models were created with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression with 10-fold cross validation. Predictive ability was evaluated via receiver operating characteristic curves and concordance statistics (c-statistics).
This study included 275 participants from the Beaver Dam Offspring Study, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of aging, with a treatable level of hearing loss and no HA use at baseline.
The clinical and expanded models report predictors important for HA use. The c-statistics of the clinical (0.80) and expanded (0.79) models were not significantly different (p = 0.41).
Similar predictive abilities of models suggest audiological evaluations perform well in predicting HA use.

Objective: (1) To test the feasibility of the Rapid Assessment of Hearing Loss (RAHL) survey protocol in Malawi (Ntcheu); (2) To estimate the prevalence and probable causes of hearing loss (adults 50+).Design: Cross-sectional population-based survey.Study sample: Clusters (n = 38) were selected using probability-proportionate-to-size-sampling. Within each cluster, 30 people aged 50+ were selected using compact-segment-sampling. All participants completed smartphone-based audiometry (hearTest). Prevalence was estimated using WHO definitions (PTA of thresholds 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz in the better ear of >25 dB HL (any) and >40 dB HL (≥moderate)). Otoscopy and questionnaire were used to assess probable causes. Participants with hearing loss and/or ear disease were asked about care-seeking and barriers.Results: Four teams completed the survey in 24 days. 1080 of 1153 (93.7%) participants were examined. The median time to complete the protocol was 24 min/participant. Prevalence of hearing loss was 35.9% (95% CI = 31.6-40.2) (any level); and 10.0% (95% CI = 7.9-12.5) (≥moderate). The majority was classified as probable sensorineural. Nearly one third of people (30.9%) needed diagnostic audiology services and possible hearing aid fitting. Hearing aid coverage was <1%. Lack of perceived need was a key barrier.Conclusion: The RAHL is simple, fast and provides information about the magnitude and probable causes of hearing loss to plan services.