IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing hearing loss in older adults with a single question and person characteristics; Comparison with pure tone audiometry in the Rotterdam Study

Author

Listed:
  • Berthe C Oosterloo
  • Nienke C Homans
  • Rob J Baatenburg de Jong
  • M Arfan Ikram
  • A Paul Nagtegaal
  • André Goedegebure

Abstract

Introduction: Hearing loss (HL) is a frequent problem among the elderly and has been studied in many cohort studies. However, pure tone audiometry—the gold standard—is rather time-consuming and costly for large population-based studies. We have investigated if self-reported hearing loss, using a multiple choice question, can be used to assess HL in absence of pure tone audiometry. Methods: This study was performed within 4,906 participants of the Rotterdam Study. The question (in Dutch) that was investigated was: ‘Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?’. The answer options were: 'never', 'sometimes', 'often' and 'daily'. Mild hearing loss or worse was defined as PTA0.5-4(Pure Tone Average 0.5, 1, 2 & 4 kHz) ≥20dBHL and moderate HL or worse as ≥35dBHL. A univariable linear regression model was fitted with the PTA0.5–4 and the answer to the question. Subsequently, sex, age and education were added in a multivariable linear regression model. The ability of the question to classify HL, accounting for sex, age and education, was explored through logistic regression models creating prediction estimates, which were plotted in ROC curves. Results: The variance explained (R2) by the univariable regression was 0.37, which increased substantially after adding age (R2 = 0.60). The addition of sex and educational level, however, did not alter the R2 (0.61). The ability of the question to classify hearing loss, reflected in the area under the curve (AUC), was 0.70 (95% CI 0.68, 0.71) for mild hearing loss or worse and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85, 0.87) for moderate hearing loss or worse. The AUC increased substantially when sex, education and age were taken into account (AUC mild HL: 0.73 (95%CI 0.71, 0.75); moderate HL 0.90 (95%CI 0.89, 0.91)). Conclusion: Self-reported hearing loss using a single question has a good ability to detect hearing loss in older adults, especially when age is accounted for. A single question cannot substitute audiometry, but it can assess hearing loss on a population level with reasonable accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Berthe C Oosterloo & Nienke C Homans & Rob J Baatenburg de Jong & M Arfan Ikram & A Paul Nagtegaal & André Goedegebure, 2020. "Assessing hearing loss in older adults with a single question and person characteristics; Comparison with pure tone audiometry in the Rotterdam Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228349
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228349
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228349&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228349?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. So Young Kim & Hyung-Jong Kim & Min-Su Kim & Bumjung Park & Jin-Hwan Kim & Hyo Geun Choi, 2017. "Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.