Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(02): 116-121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718931
Research Article

Validity of hearTest Smartphone-Based Audiometry for Hearing Screening in Workers Exposed to Noise

Luma Cordeiro Rodrigues
1   Postgraduate Programme in Environmental Health and Work, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
,
Silvia Ferrite
2   Postgraduate Programme in Collective Health, Institute of Collective Health, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
3   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
,
Ana Paula Corona
1   Postgraduate Programme in Environmental Health and Work, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
3   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding Ana Paula Corona was supported by the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico: CNPq – Process n° 429093/2016–0; Edital Universal 2016) and the Pro-Rectory of Research, Creation and Innovation of the Federal University of Bahia (Universidade Federal da Bahia: UFBA, Edital 004/2016, Programa de apoio a Jovens Professores Doutores – Propesq).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose This article investigates the validity of a smartphone-based audiometry for hearing screening to identify hearing loss in workers exposed to noise.

Research Design This is a validation study comparing hearing screening with the hearTest to conventional audiometry. The study population included all workers who attended the Brazilian Social Service of Industry to undergo periodic examinations. Sensitivity, specificity, the Youden index, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for hearing screening obtained by the hearTest were estimated according to three definitions of hearing loss: any threshold greater than 25 dB hearing level (HL), the mean auditory thresholds for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz greater than 25 dB HL, and the mean thresholds for 3, 4, and 6 kHz greater than 25 dB HL. Note that 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all measurements.

Results A total of 232 workers participated in the study. Hearing screening with the hearTest presented good sensitivity (93.8%), specificity (83.9%), and Youden index (77.7%) values, a NPV (97.2%), and a low PPV (69.0%) for the identification of hearing loss defined as any auditory threshold greater than 25 dB HL. For the other definitions of hearing loss, we observed high specificity, PPV and NPV, as well as low sensitivity and Youden index.

Conclusion The hearTest is an accurate hearing screening tool to identify hearing loss in workers exposed to noise, including those with noise-induced hearing loss, although it does not replace conventional audiometry.

Keywords

hearing loss - smartphone - workers - noise-induced hearing loss - sensitivity and specificity


Publication History

Received: 18 November 2019

Accepted: 22 July 2020

Article published online:
09 December 2020

© 2020. 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 Ferrite S, Neves CS, Meira TC. Como se distribui a exposição ao ruído ocupacional em diferentes países?. In: 20° Congresso Brasileiro de Fonoaudiologia, Brasília-DF. Anais – Sessão de pôsters. Brasília; 2012:3233
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Dobie RA. The burdens of age-related and occupational noise-induced hearing loss in the United States. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (04) 565-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tak S, Davis RR, Calvert GM. Exposure to hazardous workplace noise and use of hearing protection devices among US workers--NHANES, 1999-2004. Am J Ind Med 2009; 52 (05) 358-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ferrite S. Epidemiologia da perda auditiva em trabalhadores adultos de Salvador, Brasil. [Tese]. Salvador: Universidade Federal da Bahia – Instituto de Saúde Coletiva; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A. et al. Audiotry and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet 2014; 383 (9925): 1325-1332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med 2005; 48 (06) 446-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Concha-Barrientos M, Campbell-Lendrum D, Steenland K. Occupational noise: assessing the burden of disease from work-related hearing impairment at national and local levels. In: Pruss-Ustkin A. et al, eds. Environmental Burden of Disease Series, n.9. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Masterson EA, Deddens JA, Themann CL, Bertke S, Calvert GM. Trends in worker hearing loss by industry sector, 1981-2010. Am J Ind Med 2015; 58 (04) 392-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brasil. Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego. Norma Regulamentadora N° 7. Programa de Controle Médico e Saúde Ocupacional. Portaria SSST n.° 19; 1998
  • 10 Oliva FC, Morata TC, Lacerda ABM. et al. Mudança significativa do limiar auditivo em trabalhadores expostos a diferentes níveis de ruído. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2011; 16 (03) 260-265
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Johnson AC, Morata TC. Occupational exposure to chemicals and hearing impairment. The Nordic Expert Group for Criteria Documentation of Health Risks from Chemicals 2010; 44 (04) 177
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Ipea - Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Análise do Mercado de Trabalho. Boletim Mercado de trabalho – conjuntura e análise 2014; 20: 9-18
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Brasil. Lei n° 12.303, de 2 de agosto de 2010. Dispõe sobre a obrigatoriedade de realização do exame denominado Emissões Otoacústicas Evocadas. Diário Oficial da União [DOU]. Brasília, DF 2 ago; 2010
    PubMed
  • 14 CFFa. Conselho Federal de Fonoaudiologia. Dispõe sobre a atuação do Fonoaudiólogo frente a triagem auditiva escolar. Resolução n.° 274, de 20 de Abril; 2001
  • 15 Hashimoto H, Nomura K, Yano E. Psychosomatic status affects the relationship between subjective hearing difficulties and the results of audiometry. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57 (04) 381-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kamil RJ, Genther DJ, Lin FR. Factors associated with the accuracy of subjective assessments of hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (01) 164-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Louw C, Swanepoel W, Eikelboom RH. Self-reported hearing loss and pure tone audiometry for screening in primary health care clinics. J Prim Care Community Health 2018; 9: 2150132718803156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 World Health Organization. Meeting report of the WHO working group for revision of ear and hearing disorders survey protocol. 5–6 November, London, UK: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Abu-Ghanem S, Handzel O, Ness L, Ben-Artzi-Blima M, Fait-Ghelbendorf K, Himmelfarb M. Smartphone-based audiometric test for screening hearing loss in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (02) 333-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Peer S, Fagan JJ. Hearing loss in the developing world: evaluating the iPhone mobile device as a screening tool. S Afr Med J 2015; 105 (01) 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Szudek J, Ostevik A, Dziegielewski P. et al. Can Uhear me now? Validation of an iPod-based hearing loss screening test. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 41 (Suppl. 01) S78-S84
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Thompson GP, Sladen DP, Borst BJ, Still OL. Accuracy of a tablet audiometer for measuring behavioral hearing thresholds in a clinical population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 153 (05) 838-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Livshitz L, Ghanayim R, Kraus C. et al. Application-based hearing screening in the elderly population. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2017; 126 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gonçalves CGO. Saúde do Trabalhador: da estruturação à avaliação de Programas de Preservação Auditiva. São Paulo: Roca; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Coles RR, Lutman ME, Buffin JT. Guidelines on the diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss for medicolegal purposes. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000; 25 (04) 264-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58 (08) 859-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lloyd LL, Kaplan H. Audiometric Interpretation: A Manual to Basic Audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1978: 16-17
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3 (01) 32-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Barczik J, Serpanos YC. Accuracy of smartphone self-hearing test applications across frequencies and earphone styles in adults. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (04) 570-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gonçalves CGO, Mota PHM, Marques JM. Ruído e idade: análise da influência na audição em indivíduos com 50 - 70 anos. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica 2009; 21 (04) 57-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ferrite S, Santana VS, Marshall SW. Validity of self-reported hearing loss in adults: performance of three single questions. Rev Saude Publica 2011; 45 (05) 824-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Frota S. Fundamentos em Fonoaudiologia: Audiologia. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Guanabara; 1998
    Google Scholar