听力测量、自述听力和助听器使用的代际差异。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Lauren K Dillard, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno
{"title":"听力测量、自述听力和助听器使用的代际差异。","authors":"Lauren K Dillard, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno","doi":"10.1007/s10162-025-00993-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Birth cohort differences capture secular trends in population health. We aimed to determine birth cohort differences, defined by generation, in hearing-related outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were from a community-based cohort study. Generation was classified according to birth year: Greatest (1901-1924), Silent (1925-1945), Baby Boom (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), or Millennial (1981-1996) and Gen Z (1997-2012). Primary outcomes were audiometric hearing loss, defined as a worse ear pure-tone average (PTA) of thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz > 25 dB HL, and self-reported hearing difficulty, defined as a score ≥ 6 on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI). Analyses focused on hearing aid use included only participants with audiometric hearing loss. We used multivariable adjusted logistic regression models to evaluate associations between generation and each outcome. Models were stratified to sex when there was evidence of effect modification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This cross-sectional study included 1554 participants (mean age 63.7 [SD 14.4] years; 56.8% female, 20.0% racial Minority). The prevalence of audiometric hearing loss, self-reported hearing difficulty, and hearing aid use (among participants with audiometric hearing loss) was 48.9%, 48.8%, and 22.0%, respectively. Generation was associated with audiometric hearing loss in the entire sample and males only. Generation was not consistently associated with self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More recent generations had lower prevalence of audiometric hearing loss. There were no generational differences in self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use. Secular hearing-related trends can inform accurate projections of the burden of hearing loss and health care utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":56283,"journal":{"name":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generational Differences in Audiometric and Self-Reported Hearing and Hearing Aid Use.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren K Dillard, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10162-025-00993-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Birth cohort differences capture secular trends in population health. We aimed to determine birth cohort differences, defined by generation, in hearing-related outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were from a community-based cohort study. Generation was classified according to birth year: Greatest (1901-1924), Silent (1925-1945), Baby Boom (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), or Millennial (1981-1996) and Gen Z (1997-2012). Primary outcomes were audiometric hearing loss, defined as a worse ear pure-tone average (PTA) of thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz > 25 dB HL, and self-reported hearing difficulty, defined as a score ≥ 6 on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI). Analyses focused on hearing aid use included only participants with audiometric hearing loss. We used multivariable adjusted logistic regression models to evaluate associations between generation and each outcome. Models were stratified to sex when there was evidence of effect modification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This cross-sectional study included 1554 participants (mean age 63.7 [SD 14.4] years; 56.8% female, 20.0% racial Minority). The prevalence of audiometric hearing loss, self-reported hearing difficulty, and hearing aid use (among participants with audiometric hearing loss) was 48.9%, 48.8%, and 22.0%, respectively. Generation was associated with audiometric hearing loss in the entire sample and males only. Generation was not consistently associated with self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More recent generations had lower prevalence of audiometric hearing loss. There were no generational differences in self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use. Secular hearing-related trends can inform accurate projections of the burden of hearing loss and health care utilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-025-00993-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-025-00993-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:出生队列差异反映了人口健康的长期趋势。我们的目的是确定出生队列的差异,按世代定义,在听力相关的结果。方法:参与者来自社区队列研究。根据出生年份对一代人进行分类:最伟大(1901-1924)、沉默(1925-1945)、婴儿潮(1946-1964)、X一代(1965-1980)、千禧一代(1981-1996)和Z一代(1997-2012)。主要结局是听力损失,定义为频率为0.5、1.0、2.0和4.0 kHz的阈值较差的耳朵纯音平均(PTA),以及自报告的听力困难,定义为修订听力障碍清单(RHHI)得分≥6。专注于助听器使用的分析仅包括听力损失的参与者。我们使用多变量调整逻辑回归模型来评估世代与每个结果之间的关联。当有证据表明效果改变时,模型按性别分层。结果:该横断面研究纳入1554名参与者(平均年龄63.7 [SD 14.4]岁;56.8%女性,20.0%少数族裔)。听力损失、自我报告的听力困难和助听器使用的患病率(在听力损失的参与者中)分别为48.9%、48.8%和22.0%。在整个样本中,只有男性与听力损失有关。世代与自我报告的听力困难或助听器使用并不一致。结论:最近几代人的听力损失发生率较低。在自我报告的听力困难或助听器使用方面没有代际差异。听力相关的长期趋势可以准确预测听力损失的负担和医疗保健的利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generational Differences in Audiometric and Self-Reported Hearing and Hearing Aid Use.

Purpose: Birth cohort differences capture secular trends in population health. We aimed to determine birth cohort differences, defined by generation, in hearing-related outcomes.

Methods: Participants were from a community-based cohort study. Generation was classified according to birth year: Greatest (1901-1924), Silent (1925-1945), Baby Boom (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), or Millennial (1981-1996) and Gen Z (1997-2012). Primary outcomes were audiometric hearing loss, defined as a worse ear pure-tone average (PTA) of thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz > 25 dB HL, and self-reported hearing difficulty, defined as a score ≥ 6 on the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI). Analyses focused on hearing aid use included only participants with audiometric hearing loss. We used multivariable adjusted logistic regression models to evaluate associations between generation and each outcome. Models were stratified to sex when there was evidence of effect modification.

Results: This cross-sectional study included 1554 participants (mean age 63.7 [SD 14.4] years; 56.8% female, 20.0% racial Minority). The prevalence of audiometric hearing loss, self-reported hearing difficulty, and hearing aid use (among participants with audiometric hearing loss) was 48.9%, 48.8%, and 22.0%, respectively. Generation was associated with audiometric hearing loss in the entire sample and males only. Generation was not consistently associated with self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use.

Conclusion: More recent generations had lower prevalence of audiometric hearing loss. There were no generational differences in self-reported hearing difficulty or hearing aid use. Secular hearing-related trends can inform accurate projections of the burden of hearing loss and health care utilization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: JARO is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research findings from disciplines related to otolaryngology and communications sciences, including hearing, balance, speech and voice. JARO welcomes submissions describing experimental research that investigates the mechanisms underlying problems of basic and/or clinical significance. Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the kinds of papers carried by JARO by looking at past issues. Clinical case studies and pharmaceutical screens are not likely to be considered unless they reveal underlying mechanisms. Methods papers are not encouraged unless they include significant new findings as well. Reviews will be published at the discretion of the editorial board; consult the editor-in-chief before submitting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信