Publications

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of occupational noise exposure and risk factors of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in Hispanic/Latino adults included in the baseline wave of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos collected from 2008 to 2011. Sequential multiple linear regression modeled the relationship between occupational NIHL (defined as a 3-, 4-, 6-kHz pure-tone average [PTA]) and occupation type, self-reported noise exposure, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score, and hearing protective device (HPD) use. The final model controlled for sex, age, and recreational noise exposure. Among 12,851 included participants, approximately 40% (n = 5036) reported occupational noise exposure "Sometimes" (up to 50% of the time) or "Frequently" (75-100% of the time). In the final fitted model, longest-held occupation and CVD risk were associated with poorer hearing. Specifically, those in non-skilled, service, skilled, and military/police/other job categories had between 2.07- and 3.29-dB worse PTA than professional/office workers. Additionally, a shift in the CVD risk score category from low to medium was associated with a 2.25- and 8.20-dB worse PTA for medium and high CVD risk, respectively. Age and sex were also significantly associated with poorer hearing, such that men presented with 6.08 dB worse PTA than women, and for every one-year increase in age, PTA increased by 0.62 dB (ps < .001). No interactions were seen between noise*sometimes or frequent exposure to other ototoxic agents and PTA (ps = .33 & .92, respectively). The prevalence of occupational noise exposure was high in this cross-sectional investigation of adults from Hispanic/Latino backgrounds. Findings contribute to the extant literature by demonstrating that risk factors for occupational NIHL in adults from varying Hispanic/Latino backgrounds are consistent with those of other previously studied groups.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is associated with increased cognitive decline and incident dementia in older adults. We aimed to investigate whether a hearing intervention could reduce cognitive decline in cognitively healthy older adults with hearing loss.

METHODS: The ACHIEVE study is a multicentre, parallel-group, unmasked, randomised controlled trial of adults aged 70-84 years with untreated hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment that took place at four community study sites across the USA. Participants were recruited from two study populations at each site: (1) older adults participating in a long-standing observational study of cardiovascular health (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study), and (2) healthy de novo community volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a hearing intervention (audiological counselling and provision of hearing aids) or a control intervention of health education (individual sessions with a health educator covering topics on chronic disease prevention) and followed up every 6 months. The primary endpoint was 3-year change in a global cognition standardised factor score from a comprehensive neurocognitive battery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03243422.

FINDINGS: From Nov 9, 2017, to Oct 25, 2019, we screened 3004 participants for eligibility and randomly assigned 977 (32·5%; 238 [24%] from ARIC and 739 [76%] de novo). We randomly assigned 490 (50%) to the hearing intervention and 487 (50%) to the health education control. The cohort had a mean age of 76·8 years (SD 4·0), 523 (54%) were female, 454 (46%) were male, and most were White (n=858 [88%]). Participants from ARIC were older, had more risk factors for cognitive decline, and had lower baseline cognitive scores than those in the de novo cohort. In the primary analysis combining the ARIC and de novo cohorts, 3-year cognitive change (in SD units) was not significantly different between the hearing intervention and health education control groups (-0·200 [95% CI -0·256 to -0·144] in the hearing intervention group and -0·202 [-0·258 to -0·145] in the control group; difference 0·002 [-0·077 to 0·081]; p=0·96). However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis showed a significant difference in the effect of the hearing intervention on 3-year cognitive change between the ARIC and de novo cohorts (pinteraction=0·010). Other prespecified sensitivity analyses that varied analytical parameters used in the total cohort did not change the observed results. No significant adverse events attributed to the study were reported with either the hearing intervention or health education control.

INTERPRETATION: The hearing intervention did not reduce 3-year cognitive decline in the primary analysis of the total cohort. However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis showed that the effect differed between the two study populations that comprised the cohort. These findings suggest that a hearing intervention might reduce cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline but not in populations at decreased risk for cognitive decline.

FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin is widely used and highly ototoxic, but patient-reported functional impairment because of cisplatin-related hearing loss (HL) and tinnitus has not been comprehensively evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) given first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy completed validated questionnaires, including the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) and Tinnitus Primary Function Questionnaire (TPFQ), each of which quantifies toxicity-specific functional impairment. Spearman correlations evaluated associations between HL and tinnitus severity and level of functional handicap quantified with the HHIA and TPFQ, respectively. Associations between HL or tinnitus and five prespecified adverse health outcomes (cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and overall health) were evaluated.

RESULTS: HL and tinnitus affected 137 (56.4%) and 147 (60.5%) of 243 TCS, respectively. Hearing aids were used by 10% TCS (14/137). Of TCS with HL, 35.8% reported clinically significant functional impairment. Severe HHIA-assessed functional impairment was associated with cognitive dysfunction (odds ratio [OR], 10.62; P < .001), fatigue (OR, 5.48; P = .003), and worse overall health (OR, 0.19; P = .012). Significant relationships existed between HL severity and HHIA score, and tinnitus severity and TPFQ score (P < .0001 each). TCS with either greater hearing difficulty or more severe tinnitus were more likely to report cognitive dysfunction (OR, 5.52; P = .002; and OR, 2.56; P = .05), fatigue (OR, 6.18; P < .001; and OR, 4.04; P < .001), depression (OR, 3.93; P < .01; and OR, 3.83; P < .01), and lower overall health (OR, 0.39; P = .03; and OR, 0.46; P = .02, respectively).

CONCLUSION: One in three TCS with HL report clinically significant functional impairment. Follow-up of cisplatin-treated survivors should include routine assessment for HL and tinnitus. Use of the HHIA and TPFQ permit risk stratification and referral to audiologists as needed, since HL adversely affects functional status and is the single largest modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia in the general population.

PURPOSE: Deficits in speech understanding constitute one of the most severe consequences of hearing loss. Here we investigate the clinical and genetic risk factors for symmetric deterioration of speech recognition thresholds (SRT) among cancer survivors treated with cisplatin.

METHODS: SRT was measured using spondaic words and calculating the mean of measurements for both ears with symmetric SRT values. For clinical associations, SRT-based hearing disability (SHD) was defined as SRT≥15 dB hearing loss and clinical variables were derived from the study dataset. Genotyped blood samples were used for GWAS with rank-based inverse normal transformed SRT values as the response variable. Age was used as a covariate in association analyses.

RESULTS: SHD was inversely associated with self-reported health (p = 0.004). Current smoking (p = 0.002), years of smoking (p = 0.02), BMI (p < 0.001), and peripheral motor neuropathy (p = 0.003) were positively associated with SHD, while physical activity was inversely associated with SHD (p = 0.005). In contrast, cumulative cisplatin dose, peripheral sensory neuropathy, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia were not associated with SHD. Although no genetic variants had an association p value < 5 × 10-8 , 22 genetic variants were suggestively associated (p < 10-5 ) with SRT deterioration. Three of the top variants in 10 respective linkage disequilibrium regions were either positioned within the coding sequence or were eQTLs for genes involved in neuronal development (ATE1, ENAH, and ZFHX3).

CONCLUSION: Current results improve our understanding of risk factors for SRT deterioration in cancer survivors. Higher BMI, lower physical activity, and smoking are associated with SHD. Larger samples would allow for expansion of the current findings on the genetic architecture of SRT.

PURPOSE: Ototoxicity is a prominent side effect of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There are few reports, however, estimating its prevalence in well-defined cohorts and associated risk factors.

METHODS: Testicular cancer (TC) survivors given first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy completed validated questionnaires. Descriptive statistics evaluated the prevalence of ototoxicity, defined as self-reported hearing loss and/or tinnitus. We compared patients with and without tinnitus or hearing loss using Chi-square test, two-sided Fisher's exact test, or two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test. To evaluate ototoxicity risk factors, a backward selection logistic regression procedure was performed.

RESULTS: Of 145 TC survivors, 74% reported ototoxicity: 68% tinnitus; 59% hearing loss; and 52% reported both. TC survivors with tinnitus were more likely to indicate hypercholesterolemia (P = 0.008), and difficulty hearing (P < .001). Tinnitus was also significantly related to age at survey completion (OR = 1.79; P = 0.003) and cumulative cisplatin dose (OR = 5.17; P < 0.001). TC survivors with hearing loss were more likely to report diabetes (P = 0.042), hypertension (P = 0.007), hypercholesterolemia (P < 0.001), and family history of hearing loss (P = 0.044). Risk factors for hearing loss included age at survey completion (OR = 1.57; P = 0.036), hypercholesterolemia (OR = 3.45; P = 0.007), cumulative cisplatin dose (OR = 1.94; P = 0.049), and family history of hearing loss (OR = 2.87; P = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS: Ototoxicity risk factors included age, cisplatin dose, cardiovascular risk factors, and family history of hearing loss. Three of four TC survivors report some type of ototoxicity; thus, follow-up of cisplatin-treated survivors should include routine assessment for ototoxicity with provision of indicated treatments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors should be aware of risk factors associated with ototoxicity. Referrals to audiologists before, during, and after cisplatin treatment is recommended.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide insight for the feasibility and outcomes of hybrid (combination of in-person office and Internet-based appointments) audiology services.

METHOD: This pilot included two phases. First, we surveyed audiologists regarding what elements of a best-practice, in-person delivery of a hearing intervention could be delivered via Internet-based appointments. Next, we piloted the feasibility and assessed outcomes of the procedures identified. Ten first-time hearing aid users aged 70 years and older were fit with Phonak Audeo M90-312T hearing aids. Two Internet-based follow-up appointments were completed using the myPhonak app. We administered the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S), the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN), and real-ear aided responses (REARs) to determine whether participants experienced improvements on hearing-related outcomes. The Telehealth Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) and the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) were administered to gauge comfort with telehealth and satisfaction with Internet-based appointments.

RESULTS: Survey results revealed that after an initial in-person appointment, nearly all follow-up hearing intervention components could be delivered remotely. We performed Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests to determine if the baseline and outcome results differed for outcomes. Baseline scores improved after 6 weeks (ps = .02 and. 005 for QuickSIN and HHIE-S) for speech-in-noise performance and self-perceived hearing difficulties. REARs from 500 to 4000 Hz measured after 6 weeks did not differ from baseline (ps = .612 and .398 for the right and left ears), suggesting no significant deviation from prescriptive targets because of remote fitting adjustments. All participants reported improvement in COSI goals after the intervention. TAQ results suggested that comfort with telehealth improved after attending Internet-based appointments (p = .005). VSQ-9 results revealed no differences in reported patient satisfaction between in-person and Internet-based appointments.

CONCLUSIONS: We were able to develop a feasible hybrid audiology service delivery model for older adults. Our results enhance the evidence base for the implementation of telehealth audiology services.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of any and chronic tinnitus among female and male individuals from varied Hispanic/Latino backgrounds and to estimate associations between risk factors for chronic tinnitus.

METHOD: Our analysis used cross-sectional baseline data collected from 2008 to 2011 from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL). Prevalence estimates and multivariable logistic regression were conducted using survey methodology. Participants included 15,768 adults (8,229 women and 7,539 men) aged 18-76 years. The primary outcome of interest was chronic tinnitus, defined as self-reported tinnitus lasting ≥ 5 min at a time and at least once per week. We hypothesized that after adjusting for covariates, the risk factors of depressed and anxious symptoms, smoking history, hypertension, and noise exposure history would be associated with higher odds of chronic tinnitus.

RESULTS: Unstratified prevalence for any tinnitus was 32.9%, and for chronic tinnitus, it was 12.1%. Sex-stratified results demonstrated that 2,995 female individuals (36.4%) and 2,187 male individuals (29.0%) reported any tinnitus, and of these, 1,043 female individuals (12.7%) and 870 male individuals (11.5%) reported chronic tinnitus. In the fully adjusted model, depressed and anxious symptoms as well as recreational noise exposure were associated with higher odds of chronic tinnitus in female individuals (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.06, confidence interval [CI; 1.04, 1.07]; 1.02, CI [1.01, 1.04]; and 1.40, CI [1.20, 1.62]) and in male individuals (ORs = 1.06, CI [1.03, 1.08]; 1.05, CI [1.02, 1.08]; and 1.30, CI [1.05, 1.65]). Current smoking was a risk factor for chronic tinnitus in male individuals (OR = 1.53, CI [1.16, 2.02]).

CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of any and chronic tinnitus in the HCHS/SOL baseline cohort is higher than that reported in previous studies, particularly among female individuals. Understanding risk factors associated with tinnitus is important for the development of culturally and linguistically appropriate public health programs that consider sex differences and promote lifestyle modifications known to lower the odds of experiencing tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating hearing interventions under-utilise and under-report treatment fidelity planning, implementation, and assessment. This represents a critical gap in the field that has the potential to impede advancements in the successful dissemination and implementation of interventions. Thus, our objective was to describe treatment fidelity planning and implementation for hearing intervention in the multi-site Ageing and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial.

DESIGN: Our treatment fidelity plan was based on a framework defined by the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC), and included strategies to enhance study design, provider training, and treatment delivery, receipt, and enactment.

STUDY SAMPLE: To assess the fidelity of the ACHIEVE hearing intervention, we distributed a checklist containing criteria from each NIH BCC core treatment fidelity category to nine raters.

RESULTS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan satisfied 96% of NIH BCC criteria. Our assessment suggested a need for including clear, objective definitions of provider characteristics and non-treatment aspects of intervention delivery in future fidelity plans.

CONCLUSIONS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan can serve as a framework for the application of NIH BCC fidelity strategies for future studies and enhance the ability of researchers to reliably implement evidence-based interventions.

Many barriers to accessibility exist for Medicare beneficiaries seeking hearing and balance care such as availability of providers, coverage for services, and ability to pay. Other statutory and administrative barriers exist including the need for physician orders to have audiology services covered, the classification of audiologists as suppliers of "other diagnostic tests" under Medicare payer policy, and non-coverage of certain audiologic management and treatment services. Nearly two decades of legislative efforts have not resulted in any substantial changes to U.S. health policy, while the need for audiology services has increased due to a growing demographic of older adults. The Medicare Audiologist Access and Services Act (MAASA) has been introduced in the 116th and 117th Congress and proposes amendments to the Social Security Act that would address statutory barriers to accessing hearing and balance care among Medicare beneficiaries and would recognize audiologists for their scope of practice within the Medicare program. Objectives of the present review are to provide a summary of statutes in the Social Security Act and Standard Occupational Classification system which affect audiologists, audiology services, and Medicare beneficiaries and to discuss previous and current legislative health policy efforts to address these statutory barriers to hearing and balance care access.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the hearing health learning needs of Hispanic/Latino adults by assessing hearing healthcare (HHC) knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors to inform the development of a culturally and linguistically appropriate self-management program. Through a series of focus groups with members of the target audience, this study explored knowledge about hearing loss and interventions, cultural facilitators and barriers to HHC utilization, and preferences for hearing health education and information delivery. Opinions were also received on patient education materials designed to increase self-efficacy for managing hearing loss in daily life.

DESIGN: This work was guided by a practical framework of culturally competent interventions for addressing disparities in health and healthcare, centered on structural, clinical, and organizational barriers to care. A hybrid individualistic social psychology and social constructionist approach was used to build programmatic theory related to the primary research objective. Focus group goals were to generate a combination of personal opinions and collective experiences from participants with an a priori plan to analyze data using combined content analysis/grounded theory methods. Purposive sampling was used to select 31 participants who were Spanish-speaking, identified as Hispanic/Latino, and who had normal hearing or self-reported hearing difficulties. Thirteen focus groups were conducted using Microsoft Teams, and each group was audio and video recorded for later off-line transcription, translation, and analysis. A constant comparison approach was used to systematically organize focus group data into a structured format for interpretation. Transcripts were coded independently by two investigators, and emergent themes were derived and interpreted from the coded data.

RESULTS: Major and minor themes tied to the framework for culturally competent interventions included those related to sociocultural barriers to care. Structural barriers, including inconsistent access to quality care, lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate patient education materials, appointment wait times and intake processes, and referrals to specialty care, were most frequently experienced by participants. Clinical barriers most frequently cited were a lack of culturally and linguistically congruent healthcare providers and lack of language access during healthcare visits. Other major themes included hearing loss lived experiences, family and familism, and hearing-related patient education needs and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS: Focus group results were integrated into a Spanish-language hearing loss self-management program that is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. The themes uncovered provided insight regarding the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about hearing loss and HHC, including hearing-related learning needs, of Hispanic/Latino adults in this sample.