Impact of Hearing Loss and Restricted Access to Care on the Karen People Living in a Conflict Setting Near the Thai-Burma Border.

Abstract

Purpose: The rate of moderate-to-severe hearing loss in Southeast Asia is 5.8%, among the world's most prevalent. However, it is difficult to measure for people whose healthcare access is limited by the ongoing civil war. Therefore, a cross-sectional study of the impacts of hearing loss was incorporated with ongoing vision/cataract clinics along the Thai-Burma border.

Patients and methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, culturally sensitive informed consent was obtained from patients presenting to a regionally promoted hearing clinic in Karen State, Burma (Myanmar) with a chief complaint of hearing loss. They were then administered a standardized survey derived from the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults/Elderly (HHI), then assessed based on history, otoscopy, Weber and Rinne testing, and portable audiometry.

Results: Twenty-two adults and children presented with a chief complaint of hearing loss, and 26 others came seeking vision care needing cataract surgery. HHI survey showed 41% had mild-to-moderate, and 34% had moderate-to-severe hearing impairment. On a 0-4 Likert scale, prominent complaints due to hearing loss were feeling upset (2.4 ± 1.8), limited social life (2.2 ± 1.6), using the phone less (2.1 ± 1.8) and needing to be warned of the danger by others (2.1 ± 1.9). Seventy-three percent had no prior hearing care. Access was limited due to financial (59%), limited travel (50%), and military conflict (41%). Pure-tone averages were 55.3 + 22.1 dB and 67.9 + 14.5 dB for the right and left ears, respectively. Pure tone averages are negatively correlated with HHI survey score (R = -0.53). Chicken feathers were a common mechanism of ear drum trauma. Twenty patients received Solar Ear hearing aids.

Conclusion: Ongoing military conflict in the Karen State leaves the internally displaced people with high prevalence of hearing loss and fear of additional injury due to inability to hear danger. Surveys such as this appear more useful to assess the individual impact of hearing loss rather than severity. Efforts by regional medics to provide hearing care should be supported.