Awareness of Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Results of a Survey Conducted in 500 Subjects Across 5 European Countries as a Basis for an Online Awareness Campaign

Patrick S C D'Haese, Marc De Bodt, Vincent Van Rompaey, Paul Van de Heyning, Patrick S C D'Haese, Marc De Bodt, Vincent Van Rompaey, Paul Van de Heyning

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to assess the factors which contribute to individuals' health motivation to address hearing loss and to gather baseline data that could then be used to measure the impact of an awareness campaign. An online questionnaire with 13 closed set questions was completed by 100 subjects in each country including Austria, Germany, France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The questionnaire was based around the Health Belief Model, which describes how, in order to take action to address a medical problem, the individual must perceive that the condition presents a threat to their well-being that exceeds any barriers to treatment. Good hearing was regarded as being important in all countries. There was agreement that the main sign of hearing loss was turning up the TV or radio. In most countries, hearing aids were thought to be not particularly visible, not require much maintenance, a hindrance while doing sport, and must be removed before bed. Perceptions of hearing implants were that they were permanently fitted, not externally visible, and do not need to be removed before bed. Medical issues were mostly researched through a doctor and then via the Internet. In this sample, there was a good understanding of the consequences and signs of hearing loss, but although hearing implants were viewed as being different to hearing aids, there was little understanding that the external speech processor was similar to a hearing aid in its physical characteristics. When actions were taken, the key professionals consulted about hearing problems were the general practitioner and ear, nose, and throat specialist.

Keywords: Internet; cochlear implant; elderly adults; health belief model; penetration; referral rates; utilization.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Patrick D’Haese is an employee of MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria. Prof Van de Heyning receives grants to the institution from MED-EL and Cochlear.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram describing the health belief model, showing the factors which encourage individuals to take action to address hearing loss.

References

    1. Blanchfield B, Feldman J, Dunbar J, Gardner E. The severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States: prevalence estimates and demographics. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(4):183-189.
    1. Turton L, Smith P. Prevalence & characteristics of severe and profound hearing loss in adults in a UK national health service clinic. Int J Audiol. 2013;52:92-97.
    1. American Academy of Audiology. Incidence of severe profound hearing loss in the United States United Kingdom. . Published May 10, 2013. Accessed October 7, 2016.
    1. National Institute on Deafness Other Communication Disorders. Cochlear implants. Publication No. 00-4798. . Published February 2016. Accessed March 2016.
    1. Sorkin DL, Buchman CA. Cochlear implant access in six developed countries. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):e161-e164.
    1. Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world’s largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(suppl 1):S4-S12.
    1. Bond M, Elston J, Mealing S, et al. Systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-channel unilateral cochlear implants for adults. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35(2):87-96.
    1. Vickers D, De Raeve L, Graham J. International survey of cochlear implant candidacy. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016; 17(suppl 1):36-41.
    1. Davis A. Hearing in Adults: The Prevalence and Distribution of Hearing Impairment and Reported Hearing Disability in the MRC Institute of Hearing Research’s National Study of Hearing. London, England: Whurr Publishers; 1995.
    1. Van den Brink RH, Wit HP, Kempen GI, van Heuvelen MJ. Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol. 1996;30(5):313-324.
    1. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(2):175-183.
    1. Meyer C, Hickson L. What factors influence help-seeking for hearing impairment and hearing aid adoption in older adults? Int J Audiol. 2012;51(2):66-74.
    1. Chen DS, Clarrett DM, Li L, Bowditch SP, Niparko JK, Lin FR. Cochlear implantation in older adults: long-term analysis of complications and device survival in a consecutive series. Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:1272-1277.
    1. Lin FR, Chien WW, Li L, Clarrett DM, Niparko JK, Francis HW. Cochlear implantation in older adults. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012;91(5):229-241.
    1. Zwolan TA, Henion K, Segel P, Runge C. The role of age on cochlear implant performance, use, and health utility: a multicenter clinical trial. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(9):1560-1568.
    1. Gurgel RK, Ward PD, Schwartz S, Norton MC, Foster NL, Tschanz JT. Relationship of hearing loss and dementia: a prospective, population-based study. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(5):775-781.
    1. Lin FR, Ferrucci L, An Y, et al. Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults. NeuroImage. 2014;90:84-92.
    1. Pew Research Centre. Older adults and technology use. . Published April 3, 2014. Accessed June 12, 2016.
    1. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA166]. Cochlear implants for children and adults with severe to profound deafness. . Published January 28, 2009. Accessed June 12, 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere