OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 screening methods for unrecognized handicapping hearing loss in the elderly. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. POPULATION: Five hundred forty-six older individuals who underwent audiometry at biennial examination 22 of the Framingham Heart Study and who took the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire. OUTCOMES MEASURED: The 2 screening methods were the 10-item HHIE-S and 1 global question: "Do you have a hearing problem now?" The gold standard was an audiogram showing a pure tone threshold of 40 dB HL or higher at 1 and 2 kHz in one ear or at 1 or 2 kHz in both ears. Both screening methods were compared with the gold standard in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The 10-item screening version of the HHIE-S (cutoff score between 8 and 10) had a sensitivity of 35% and a specificity of 94% for detecting the criterion hearing loss. The global subjective measure had greater sensitivity (71%) but lower specificity (71%) than the HHIE-S. Combining the global question and the HHIE-S items failed to improve the specificity of the global question or the sensitivity of the HHIE-S. CONCLUSIONS: The global measure of hearing loss was more effective than the detailed questionnaire in identifying older individuals with unrecognized handicapping hearing loss. Primary care physicians are encouraged to ask their patients whether they have a hearing problem and refer patients who do for formal hearing testing.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 screening methods for unrecognized handicapping hearing loss in the elderly. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. POPULATION: Five hundred forty-six older individuals who underwent audiometry at biennial examination 22 of the Framingham Heart Study and who took the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire. OUTCOMES MEASURED: The 2 screening methods were the 10-item HHIE-S and 1 global question: "Do you have a hearing problem now?" The gold standard was an audiogram showing a pure tone threshold of 40 dB HL or higher at 1 and 2 kHz in one ear or at 1 or 2 kHz in both ears. Both screening methods were compared with the gold standard in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The 10-item screening version of the HHIE-S (cutoff score between 8 and 10) had a sensitivity of 35% and a specificity of 94% for detecting the criterion hearing loss. The global subjective measure had greater sensitivity (71%) but lower specificity (71%) than the HHIE-S. Combining the global question and the HHIE-S items failed to improve the specificity of the global question or the sensitivity of the HHIE-S. CONCLUSIONS: The global measure of hearing loss was more effective than the detailed questionnaire in identifying older individuals with unrecognized handicapping hearing loss. Primary care physicians are encouraged to ask their patients whether they have a hearing problem and refer patients who do for formal hearing testing.
Authors: Rashid Al-Abri; Mustafa Al-Balushi; Arif Kolethekkat; Deepa Bhargava; Amna Al-Alwi; Hana Al-Bahlani; Manal Al-Garadi Journal: Oman Med J Date: 2016-03
Authors: Kevin Hawkins; Frank G Bottone; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Shirley Musich; Ming Bai; Richard J Migliori; Charlotte S Yeh Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sheila R Pratt; Lewis Kuller; Evelyn O Talbott; Kathleen McHugh-Pemu; Alhaji M Buhari; Xiaohui Xu Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jesús López-Torres Hidalgo; Clotilde Boix Gras; Juan Manuel Téllez Lapeira; Ignacio Párraga Martínez; Maria Angeles López Verdejo; Francisco Escobar Rabadán; Angel Otero Puime Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166