Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(04): 235-245
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723041
Research Article

Hearing Health Care Utilization Following Automated Hearing Screening

Robert L. Folmer
1   VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Gabrielle H. Saunders
1   VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
3   Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
,
Jay J. Vachhani
1   VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
,
Robert H. Margolis
4   Audiology Incorporated, Arden Hills, Minnesota
,
George Saly
4   Audiology Incorporated, Arden Hills, Minnesota
,
Bevan Yueh
5   Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
,
Rachel A. McArdle
6   Office of Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC
,
Lawrence L. Feth
7   Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Christina M. Roup
7   Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
M. Patrick Feeney
1   VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was supported by grant R33 DC011769 from NIH/NIDCD. Additional support was provided by VA RR&D Center Award C9230C. R.H.M. and G.S. have a commercial interest in the automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS). Preliminary results of this study were presented in March 2019 at the Annual Scientific and Technology Conference of the American Auditory Society in Scottsdale, Arizona.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The study examined follow-up rates for pursuing hearing health care (HHC) 6 to 8 months after participants self-administered one of three hearing screening methods: an automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS), a four-frequency pure-tone screener (FFS), or a digits-in-noise test (DIN), with and without the presentation of a 2-minute educational video about hearing.

Purpose The study aims to determine if the type of self-administered hearing screening method (with or without an educational video) affects HHC follow-up rates.

Research Design The study is a randomized controlled trial of three automated hearing screening methods, plus control group, with and without an educational video. The control group completed questionnaires and provided follow-up data but did not undergo a hearing screening test.

Study Sample The study sample includes 1,665 participants (mean age 50.8 years; 935 males) at two VA Medical Centers and at university and community centers in Portland, OR; Bay Pines, FL; Minneapolis, MN; Mauston, WI; and Columbus, OH.

Data Collection and Analysis HHC follow-up data at 6 to 8 months were obtained by contacting participants by phone or mail. Screening methods and participant characteristics were compared in relation to the probability of participants pursuing HHC during the follow-up period.

Results The 2-minute educational video did not have a significant effect on HHC follow-up rates. When all participants who provided follow-up data are considered (n = 1012), the FFS was the only test that resulted in a significantly greater percentage of HHC follow-up (24.6%) compared with the control group (16.8%); p = 0.03. However, for participants who failed a hearing screening (n = 467), follow-up results for all screening methods were significantly greater than for controls. The FFS resulted in a greater probability for HHC follow-up overall than the other two screening methods. Moreover, veterans had higher follow-up rates for all screening methods than non-veterans.

Conclusion The FFS resulted in a greater HHC follow-up rate compared with the other screening methods. This self-administered test may be more motivational for HHC follow-up because participants who fail the screening are aware of sounds they could not hear which does not occur with adaptive assessments like AMTAS or the DIN test. It is likely that access to and reduced personal cost of audiological services for veterans contributed to higher HHC follow-up rates in this group compared with non-veteran participants.

Keywords

hearing loss - automated hearing screening - hearing health care

Note

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, or policies of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or of the United States government.




Publication History

Received: 05 April 2020

Accepted: 02 October 2020

Article published online:
01 June 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS. et al; The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148 (09) 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sung YK, Li L, Blake C, Betz J, Lin FR. Association of hearing loss and loneliness in older adults. J Aging Health 2016; 28 (06) 979-994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kay DW, Roth M, Beamish P. Old age mental disorders in Newcastle upon Tyne. II. A study of possible social and medical causes. Br J Psychiatry 1964; 110: 668-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Herbst KG, Humphrey C. Hearing impairment and mental state in the elderly living at home. BMJ 1980; 281 (6245): 903-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mulrow CD, Tuley MR, Aguilar C. Discriminating and responsiveness abilities of two hearing handicap scales. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (03) 176-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LaForge RG, Spector WD, Sternberg J. The relationship of vision and hearing impairment to one-year mortality and functional decline. J Aging Health 1992; 4: 126-148
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Carabellese C, Appollonio I, Rozzini R. et al. Sensory impairment and quality of life in a community elderly population. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41 (04) 401-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Appollonio I, Carabellese C, Frattola L, Trabucchi M. Effects of sensory aids on the quality of life and mortality of elderly people: a multivariate analysis. Age Ageing 1996; 25 (02) 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shukla A, Reed N, Armstrong NM, Lin FR, Deal JA, Goman AM. Hearing loss, hearing aid use and depressive symptoms in older adults - Findings from the atherosclerosis risk in communities neurocognitive study (ARIC-NCS). J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2019; (e-pub ahead of print). DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbz128.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Uhlmann RF, Larson EB, Rees TS, Koepsell TD, Duckert LG. Relationship of hearing impairment to dementia and cognitive dysfunction in older adults. JAMA 1989; 261 (13) 1916-1919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lin FR, Metter EJ, O'Brien RJ, Resnick SM, Zonderman AB, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol 2011; 68 (02) 214-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gates GA, Cooper Jr JC, Kannel WB, Miller NJ. Hearing in the elderly: the Framingham cohort, 1983-1985. Part I. Basic audiometric test results. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (04) 247-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 NIDCD. (National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders). Quick Statistics About Hearing website. Accessed November 5, 2020 at: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/Pages/quick.aspx
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Donahue A, Dubno JR, Beck L. Guest editorial: accessible and affordable hearing health care for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 2-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Smits C, Merkus P, Houtgast T. How we do it: the Dutch functional hearing-screening tests by telephone and internet. Clin Otolaryngol 2006; 31 (05) 436-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Meyer C, Hickson L, Khan A, Hartley D, Dillon H, Seymour J. Investigation of the actions taken by adults who failed a telephone-based hearing screen. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (06) 720-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Thodi C, Parazzini M, Kramer SE. et al. Adult hearing screening: follow-up and outcomes1. Am J Audiol 2013; 22 (01) 183-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ingo E, Brännström KJ, Andersson G, Lunner T, Laplante-Lévesque A. Measuring motivation using the transtheoretical (stages of change) model: a follow-up study of people who failed an online hearing screening. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl. 03) S52-S58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE. et al. Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment—which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010; 58 (03) 427-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 1982; 3 (03) 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rosenstock IM. Why people use health services. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1966; 44 (03) 94-127
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Saunders GH, Frederick MT, Silverman SC, Nielsen C, Laplante-Lévesque A. Description of adults seeking hearing help for the first time according to two health behavior change approaches: Transtheoretical Model (stages of change) and Health Belief Model. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (03) 324-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BC. AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (03) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Folmer RL, Vachhani J, McMillan GP, Watson C, Kidd GR, Feeney MP. Validation of a computer-administered version of the digits-in-noise test for hearing screening in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (02) 161-169
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The hearing handicap inventory for adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Saunders GH, Frederick MT, Silverman S, Papesh M. Application of the health belief model: development of the hearing beliefs questionnaire (HBQ) and its associations with hearing health behaviors. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (08) 558-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Laplante-Lévesque A, Brännström KJ, Ingo E, Andersson G, Lunner T. Stages of change in adults who have failed an online hearing screening. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (01) 92-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Saunders GH, Chisolm TH, Wallhagen MI. Older adults and hearing help-seeking behaviors. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (02) 331-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar