3 years ago

Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation

Min-Su Kim, Jin-Hwan Kim, Hyo Geun Choi, So Young Kim, Bumjung Park, Hyung-Jong Kim

by So Young Kim, Hyung-Jong Kim, Min-Su Kim, Bumjung Park, Jin-Hwan Kim, Hyo Geun Choi

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between self-reported hearing status and hearing impairment assessed using conventional audiometry. The associated factors were examined when a concordance between self-reported hearing and audiometric measures was lacking.

Methods

In total, 19,642 individuals ≥20 years of age who participated in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted from 2009 through 2012 were enrolled. Pure-tone hearing threshold audiometry (PTA) was measured and classified into three levels: <25 dB (normal hearing); ≥25 dB <40 dB (mild hearing impairment); and ≥40 dB (moderate-to-severe hearing impairment). The self-reported hearing loss was categorized into 3 categories. The participants were categorized into three groups: the concordance (matched between self-reported hearing loss and audiometric PTA), overestimation (higher self-reported hearing loss compared to audiometric PTA), and underestimation groups (lower self-reported hearing loss compared to audiometric PTA). The associations of age, sex, education level, stress level, anxiety/depression, tympanic membrane (TM) status, hearing aid use, and tinnitus with the discrepancy between the hearing self-reported hearing loss and audiometric pure tone threshold results were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis with complex sampling.

Results

Overall, 80.1%, 7.1%, and 12.8% of the participants were assigned to the concordance, overestimation, and underestimation groups, respectively. Older age (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.28 [95% confidence interval = 1.19–1.37] and 2.80 [2.62–2.99] for the overestimation and the underestimation groups, respectively), abnormal TM (2.17 [1.46–3.23] and 1.59 [1.17–2.15]), and tinnitus (2.44 [2.10–2.83] and 1.61 [1.38–1.87]) were positively correlated with both the overestimation and underestimation groups. Compared with specialized workers, service workers, manual workers, and the unemployed were more likely to be in the overestimation group (1.48 [1.11–1.98], 1.39 [1.04–1.86], and 1.50 [1.18–1.90], respectively), and service workers were more likely to be in the underestimation group (AOR = 1.42 [1.01–1.99]). Higher education level (0.77 [0.59–1.01] and 0.43 [0.33–0.57]) and hearing aid use (0.36 [0.17–0.77] and 0.23 [0.13–0.43]) were negatively associated with being in the underestimation group (0.43 [0.37–0.50]). Compared with males, females were less likely to be assigned to the underestimation group (0.43 [0.37–0.50]). Stress (1.98 [1.32–2.98]) and anxiety/depression (1.30 [1.06–1.59]) were associated with overestimation group.

Conclusion

Older age, lower education level, occupation, abnormal TM, non-hearing aid use, and tinnitus were related to both overestimation and underestimation groups. Male gender was related to underestimation, and stress and anxiety/depression were correlated with overestimation group. An understanding of these factors associated with the self-reported hearing loss will be instrumental to identifying and managing hearing-impaired individuals.

Publisher URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182718

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.