Hearing Screening Age Considerations for Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Abstract

Background The United States Preventative Service Taskforce recently determined that there was insufficient evidence to recommend hearing screening in adults.

Purpose To determine the age to screen adults in the U.S. for hearing loss and identify factors related to increased odds of hearing loss.

Research Design Epidemiological Cross-Sectional Study.

Study Sample Data from 3,409 individuals aged 20–69 years(y) were analyzed from the 1999–2000 and 2000–2002 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Data Collection and Analysis Hearing sensitivity from 0.5–8 kHz was assessed and hearing loss was defined as pure tone average 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz (PTA4) > 15 dBHL for the worse ear. Thresholds were examined separately for men and women in 2-year intervals. A multivariate ordinal regression model adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education was used to examine relationship to determinants.

Results Slight (>15 dBHL) hearing loss based on threshold at a single audiometric frequency was first evident in males aged 28–29y. For females, this occurred at age 34–35y. The age at which average PTA4 increased above 15 dBHL (slight hearing loss) was 46–47y for males and 56–57y for females. Multivariate ordinal regression revealed the following “high risk” factors: increased age, male sex, tinnitus, perceived hearing loss, and diabetes.

Conclusions For the function of primary prevention, these data suggest screening should initiate at ∼30y for males and 35y for females, the ages when average hearing thresholds at a single frequency can be classified as slight hearing loss. For secondary prevention, the recommended screening ages are higher – 45y for males and 55y for females. Hearing screening is recommended for asymptomatic adults, especially those with high risk factors. Our results also highlight the limitations of PTA4 in identifying early indices of hearing loss.

Keywords

hearing loss - epidemiology - screening

Hearing loss screening has become a universal standard for newborns in the United States (U.S.). A wealth of literature has been published supporting the benefits of early identification and intervention for hearing loss in pediatric populations (e.g., Yoshinaga-Itano et al, 2000; Bower and John, 2014; Young et al, 2011).[1] [2] [3] Yet the prevalence of congenital hearing loss (0.1%) and hearing loss among school-aged children (3.1%) in the U.S. (Mehra et al, 2009)[4] pales in comparison to the prevalence of hearing loss in adults, which ranges from 39.3% in 60–69 year olds, to 90.3% in persons ≥80 years old (Goman and Lin, 2016; Hoffman et al, 2017).[5] [6]

Adult hearing loss has been associated with social-affective issues (e.g., social isolation), increased fall risk, numerous medical comorbidities, increased risk of all-cause mortality, and cognitive decline (Hodkinson, 1973; Lin and Ferrucci, 2012; Mick et al, 2014; Livingston et. al., 2017).[7] [8] [9] [10] Recently, Golub et al (2020)[11] reported evidence of cognitive deficits in persons with slight hearing loss (i.e., pure tone average [0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz] >15 dBHL in lieu of the common epidemiological cutoff of 25 dBHL).

The high prevalence of hearing loss in adults and associations with cognitive decline and medical comorbidities is a significant public health concern and raises the question, should we be screening the adult population for hearing loss? In 2014, the United States Preventative Taskforce (USPSTF) released updated recommendations and concluded that evidence was insufficient to support hearing screening for adults ≥50y (Moyer, 2012).[12] This recommendation is in stark contrast to the Healthy People 2020[13] goals of “increasing the proportion of persons who had a hearing examination on schedule” and “increasing the portion of persons with hearing impairment who have ever used a hearing aid or assistive listening device or who have cochlear implants” (Healthy People, 2020).[13] The USPSTF is also in contradiction to recommendations from professional organizations; for example, the American Speech-Language- Hearing Association (ASHA) recommends screening adults for hearing loss every decade through age 50y and at 3-year intervals thereafter (Valente et al, 2006).

A missing factor in supporting screening recommendations is identifying the age to screen adults. The age proposed may be dependent on the purpose of the screening, which can be to prevent hearing loss (primary prevention) and/or to provide strategies to mitigate progression of hearing loss and provide early intervention to improve function (secondary prevention). In this study, we aim to identify the ideal age for adult hearing screening to 1) institute preventative measures for patients with normal hearing (primary prevention) and 2) to prevent further progression or initiate appropriate treatment (secondary prevention). The analysis also considers the implications of how hearing loss is defined in identifying early evidence of pathology and enabling early intervention.

Methods

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is an ongoing “rolling” cross-sectional survey of the civilian non-institutionalized population of the United States. Between 1999 and 2002, NHANES collected data on 21,004 individuals of all ages (9,965 in 1999–2000 and 11,039 in 2001–2002). The NHANES data used are publicly available (Curtin et al, 2012).[14] Although newer NHANES data are available, only the surveys from 1999–2002 contain information on balance and Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Participants

From the total pool of 21,004 NHANES participants from the 1999–2000 and 2000–2002 cycles, there were 8,143 participants ages 20 to 69 years. Audiometric data were collected in a sub-sample of 3,853 participants from the two NHANES cycles (1999–2000: 1,807 participants; 2000–2002: 2,046 participants). The NHANES protocol excludes audiograms with inconsistent audiometry at 1000 Hz of more than 10 dB differences at re-test. Of the 3,853 participants with audiometric data, there were 3,409 participants included in the final analysis after exclusion due to inconsistent, incomplete, or missing auditory data.

Audiometric Testing

The examination consisted of a questionnaire, otoscopic examination, tympanometry and pure-tone air-conduction threshold measures at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 kHz. A pure tone average (PTA) was calculated for 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz, referred to as PTA4. Based on PTA4, participants were categorized according to presence and severity of hearing loss. “Normal” hearing sensitivity was defined as PTA4 <= 15 dBHL, slight hearing loss was defined as > 15 to <= 25 dBHL, mild hearing loss was defined as > 25 to <= 40 dBHL, and moderate or greater hearing loss > 40 dBHL, based on ASHA clinical cutoff recommendations (Clark, 1981).[15] Hearing loss was also defined as average threshold at any audiometric frequency > 15 dBHL (slight), or 25 dBHL (mild), or 40 dBHL (moderate) for the worse ear. Self-reported hearing difficulty was based on a question of general condition of hearing, which read, “Which statement best describes your hearing (without a hearing aid)? Would you say your hearing is good, that you have a little trouble, a lot of trouble, or are you deaf?” Any tinnitus in the past year was defined as answering “yes” to the question, “In the past 12 months, have you ever had ringing, roaring, or buzzing in your ears? Finally, the articulation index (AI) was calculated using the count-the-dot method by plotting the mean thresholds for the age corresponding to the defined hearing losses above (Killion and Mueller et al, 2010).[16]

Covariates

As part of the NHANES data collection, trained interviewers administer detailed questionnaires and examinations assessing various factors that may influence health outcomes. Covariates included in our analyses were based on the previous literature, preliminary Spearman's rho correlation analyses, and preliminary multivariate logistic regression models. Covariates considered included demographics: age (categorized in 2-year increments for finer estimate), sex, race/ethnicity, education level; self-reported exposures: noise exposure, smoking status, alcohol use, ototoxic drugs, dizziness, vision difficulty; told by physician conditions: diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, cancer, arthritis, overweight; and calculated outcomes: pure tone average (PTA), body mass index (BMI; kg/m2), and dietary quality (measured by the Healthy Eating Index [HEI]).[17] Medical conditions were based on questions asking if the participant had been told by their doctor, they have the specific condition, for example “have you even been told by your doctor you have diabetes?” BMI and HEI were based on examination data.

Statistical Analysis

Data were entered into the Complex Samples Analysis incorporating 4-year sample weights. Sample weights are assigned to each sample as a measure of the number of people in the population represented by that sample person, this allows estimates representative of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. Wald statistics were performed for overall models and α ≤0.05 was defined as statistically significant. For univariate analysis, categorical data were analyzed with chi-square analysis and continuous data with t-test. Multivariate ordinal regression models adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education were used to examine relationships to risk factors. Variance is shown by standard error of the mean (SEM). All analyses were performed in SPSS version 26 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

The descriptive data shown in [Table 1] are stratified by hearing status based on PTA4 and shows p-values for chi-square (categorical variables) and t-test (continuous variables). The percentages represent the frequency counts corresponding to each variable based on hearing status (row percentage). The total column shows total percentage and counts for each variable or categories of the variable (column percentage). [Table 2] shows the cumulative odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the adjusted relationships for variables that met significance criteria (p < 0.05). Tinnitus, noise exposure, high blood pressure, arthritis, stroke, heavy drinking, use of over the counter (OTC) analgesics, diabetes, and perceived hearing loss maintained statistical significance with increased odds of hearing loss. On the other hand, every 1-point increase in HEI score was related to a 2.0% decreased odds of hearing loss (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.98–0.99).

Table 1 Descriptive demographic data for NHANES 1999–2002. Stratified by hearing-loss categories based on PTA4. Sample weights applied

Characteristic	n	Hearing Status based on PTA4 (n [%])				p-value
		Normal <= 15 dB HL	Slight >15 and <= 25 dB HL	Mild >25 and <= 40 dB HL	Moderate + > 40 dB HL
Sex
Female	1810(51.1%)	1263 (71.2%)	369 (19.3%)	128 (6.7%)	50 (2.7%)	<0.001
Male	1599(48.9%)	798 (52.1%)	417 (26.7%)	265 (15.2%)	119 (6.0%)
Age (y)
20–21	175(5.1%)	156 (87.3%)	14 (8.8%)	4 (1.7%)	1 (2.3%)	<0.001
22–23	161(4.0%)	145 (87.7%)	12 (9.9%)	4 (2.4%)	0 (0.0%)
24–25	159(3.9%)	140 (87.2%)	15 (9.7%)	2 (0.9%)	2 (1.6%)
26–27	156(4.2%)	130 (82.3%)	24 (16.1%)	1 (1.3%)	1 (0.3%)
28–29	149(4.3%)	125 (83.3%)	19 (19.7%)	5 (4.0%)	0 (0.0%)
30–31	134(4.1%)	111 (79.3%)	17 (15.9%)	6 (4.8%)	0 (0.0%)
32–33	148(5.2%)	119 (84.5%)	19 (10.5%)	7 (3.9%)	3 (1.1%)
34–35	156(5.0%)	134 (85.6%)	18 (12.7%)	3 (1.6%)	1 (0.1%)
36–37	137(4.5%)	106 (75.9%)	24 (19.3%)	7 (4.8%)	0 (0.0%)
38–39	145(5.3%)	99 (65.2%)	36 (26.7%)	8 (6.2%)	2 (1.9%)
40–41	140(4.5%)	97 (69.5%)	33 (23.4%)	8 (6.3%)	2 (0.9%)
42–43	141(4.7%)	89 (57.9%)	37 (30.3%)	10 (8.62%)	5 (3.2%)
44–45	159(5.7%)	98 (61.6%)	44 (29.2%)	14 (8.3%)	3 (0.8%)
46–47	137(5.7%)	74 (54.1%)	42 (25.4%)	15 (15.0%)	6 (5.5%)
48–49	116(4.2%)	64 (53.8%)	31 (27.3%)	17 (15.6%)	4 (3.3%)
50–51	143(4.5%)	74 (52.6%)	43 (28.1%)	23 (16.7%)	3 (2.5%)
52–53	133(4.2%)	61 (46.5%)	52 (39.1%)	11 (7.1%)	9 (7.3%)
54–55	108(3.4%)	42 (40.4%)	41 (37.2%)	19 (15.2%)	6 (7.2%)
56–57	93(3.1%)	34 (35.7%)	28 (30.4%)	22 (26.4%)	9 (7.5%)
58–59	85(2.8%)	23 (26.6%)	25 (28.9%)	24 (32.2%)	13 (12.4%)
60–61	160(2.7%)	50 (32.0%)	57 (34.0%)	40 (22.3%)	13 (11.8%)
62–63	130(2.4%)	30 (22.0%)	43 (35.6%)	37 (25.7%)	20 (16.7%)
64–65	117(2.1%)	22 (18.4%)	42 (32.9%)	32 (26.7%)	21 (22.0%)
66–67	134(2.5%)	21 (12.9%)	43 (31.8%)	42 (34.8%)	28 (20.5%)
68–69	93(1.8%)	17 (15.7%)	27 (24.3%)	32 (41.9%)	17 (18.1%)
Race/Ethnicity
White	1555(69.0%)	906 (59.9%)	361 (23.7%)	203 (12.2%)	85 (4.6%)	<0.001
Black	669(11.1%)	421 (69.6%)	168 (21.8%)	49 (5.7%)	31 (2.8%)
Mexican	851(7.7%)	531 (70.8%)	183 (19.1%)	101 (7.8%)	36 (2.3%)
Hispanic	207(7.6%)	123 (63.6%)	48 (21.5%)	26 (8.8%)	10 (6.1%)
Other	127(4.7%)	80 (60.4%)	26 (23.7%)	14 (11.1%)	7 (4.8%)
Education
< High School	1059(19.8%)	532 (51.7%)	271 (25.0%)	171 (15.8%)	85 (7.5%)	<0.001
High School	758(14.4%)	448 (58.3%)	198 (26.4%)	80 (10.9%)	32 (4.3%)
> High School	1590(55.5)	1080 (67.0%)	317 (20.7%)	141 (9.1%)	52 (3.2%)
Noise Exposure
Work	1011(33.0%)	541 (54.7%)	256 (25.5%)	154 (14.7%)	60 (5.2%)	<0.001
Recreational	742(25.6%)	452 (60.2%)	162 (22.5%)	91 (12.3%)	37 (5.0%)	0.193
Firearm	224(7.6%)	106 (44.9%)	56 (27.5%)	41 (20.5%)	21 (7.6%)	<0.001
Hearing Health
Ototoxic Medication	439(13.1%)	189 (47.8%)	128 (26.8%)	85 (17.9%)	37 (7.5%)	<0.001
Tinnitus	786(23.7%)	408 (53.1%)	183 (23.4%)	124 (15.6%)	71 (7.9%)	<0.001
Chronic Tinnitus	472 (14.6%)	215 (46.2%)	111 (24.6%)	86 (17.9%)	60 (11.3%)	<0.001
Perceived Hearing Loss	706 (22.4%)	234 (36.1%)	166 (24.4%)	177 (24.8%)	129 (14.7%)	<0.001
Use Hearing Aid	51(1.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.5%)	13 (26.2%)	37 (72.3%)	<0.001
Hearing Tested	2563(81.8%)	1567 (62.2%)	571 (22.3%)	284 (10.8%)	141 (4.6%)	0.827
Health
Diabetes	291(6.7%)	81 (30.2%)	105 (31.3%)	74 (27.4%)	31 (11.2%)	<0.001
Vision Difficulty	643 (16.3%)	318 (53.9%)	168 (24.7%)	114 (16.7%)	43 (4.7%)	0.002
Cancer	200(6.6%)	82 (44.5%)	60 (29.9%)	40 (17.8%)	18 (7.9%)	<0.001
Stroke	64(1.6%)	17 (35.2%)	16 (23.2%)	20 (23.5%)	11 (18.0%)	<0.001
Heart Attack	78(2.2%)	23 (32.2%)	25 (30.6%)	21 (25.8%)	9 (11.4%)	<0.001
Hypertension	838 (21.7%)	358 (44.3%)	251 (29.4%)	162 (18.7%)	67 (7.5%)	<0.001
Arthritis	607 (17.1%)	233 (39.8%)	184 (31.1%)	127 (18.2%)	63 (10.8%)	<0.001
Dizziness	403(18.8%)	157 (42.7%)	114 (27.0%)	86 (19.3%)	46 (11.0%)	0.1
Smoke	1629(50.5%)	855 (55.6%)	428 (25.9%)	232 (12.9%)	114 (5.6%)	<0.001
Alcohol 5 /day	473(17.0%)	205 (48.1%)	130 (26.0%)	91 (17.4%)	47 (8.5%)	<0.001
OTC Analgesics	592(19.8%)	271 (48.9%)	167 (25.9%)	105 (17.7%)	49 (7.5%)	<0.001
Overweight	979 (29.8%)	500 (54.3%)	289 (27.0%)	135 (13.0%)	55 (5.6%)	<0.001
Veteran	391 (12.8%)	143 (40.8%)	111 (26.9%)	87 (21.6%)	50 (10.7%)	<0.001
			Mean and Standard Error of Mean (SEM)
Healthy Eating Index	3315	63.41 (0.46)	62.22 (0.41)	63.06 (0.88)	62.53 (1.03)	0.01

Abbreviations: OTC, Over the Counter; PTA, Pure Tone Average; y, years.

Table 2 Adjusted cumulative odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for significant factors related to hearing loss based on PTA4

	Cumulative OR	95% Confidence Interval
Variable
Noise Exposure
Firearm	1.54	1.04	2.28
Recreational	1.36	1.06	1.72
Job	1.21	1.00	1.47
Hearing Health
Tinnitus	1.59	1.31	1.94
Chronic Tinnitus	1.91	1.48	2.47
Perceived Loss	3.62	2.85	4.58
Health
Diabetes	1.67	1.21	2.31
Stroke	2.46	1.18	5.11
Hypertension	1.32	1.02	1.71
Arthritis	1.44	1.12	1.84
Alcohol 5/day	1.43	1.02	1.99
OTC Analgesics	1.24	1.00	1.52
Healthy Eating Index	0.98	0.98	0.99

Abbreviations: OTC, Over the Counter; PTA, Pure Tone Average.

^a Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education.

The variables with adjusted statistical significance were then entered into a single multivariate ordinal regression model to identify “high-risk” factors relative to age-related hearing loss (as defined by PTA4 categories) and screening recommendations, shown in [Table 3]. The primary variables associated with increased odds of hearing loss were increased age, male sex, chronic tinnitus, perceived hearing loss, firearm use, and diabetes. No other health or audiological variables remained significant in the model. In contrast, compared with Caucasians, African Americans showed decreased odds of hearing loss (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47–0.87), however, no other race/ethnicity demonstrated a significant relationship to PTA4.

Table 3 Cumulative odds ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals for high risk factors

	Cumulative OR	95% Confidence Interval
Variable
Sex	2.77	2.35	3.27
Age	1.09	1.07	1.10
Race
Mexican	0.91	0.62	1.35
Hispanic	1.31	0.79	2.15
Black	0.60	0.46	0.78
Other	0.96	0.54	1.70
White	ref	ref	ref
Education
<High School	1.81	1.28	1.60
High School	1.23	1.01	1.50
> High School	ref	ref	ref
Noise
Firearm Use	1.58	1.02	2.46
Recreational Noise	1.09	0.86	1.40
Job Noise	1.25	0.97	1.62
Hearing Health
Chronic Tinnitus	1.42	1.05	1.89
Perceived hearing loss	3.30	2.5	4.38
Health
Diabetes	1.65	1.16	2.33
Stroke	1.76	0.78	3.97
Hypertension	1.14	0.83	1.57
Arthritis	0.96	0.76	1.30
Alcohol 5/day	1.67	0.97	1.28
OTC Analgesics	0.97	0.76	1.22
Healthy Eating Index	0.98	0.97	0.99

Abbreviation: OTC, Over the Counter.

Bold text indicates statistical significance, p < 0.05.

Next, we examined the relationship between age and pure-tone audiometric thresholds. [Fig. 1] depicts hearing thresholds by frequency with increasing age category for the right ear. Based on the strong relationship to sex, we stratified the findings for males (1A) and females (1B). The grayscale on the graph reflects common clinical cutoffs for hearing sensitivity (Clark, 1981).[15] Average thresholds in males ([Fig. 1A]) aged 28–29y represented the youngest age group with a threshold at a single frequency >15 dBHL (green circle); for females this occurred at age 34–35y. The orange circles depict the age that average threshold at any frequency increased >25 dBHL; this was observed in males at age 42–43y and for females at age 52–53y. The blue circles represent the age that average threshold at any frequency increased above 40 dBHL; this was observed for males at age 50–51y and for females at the age 64–65y. The age at which average PTA4 increased above 15 dBHL (slight hearing loss) was 46–47y for males and 56–57y for females, a 10-year difference (represented by yellow circles in [Fig. 1]). The age average PTA4 increased above 25 dBHL (mild hearing loss) was 60–61y for males (represented by red circles). Females on average did not show PTA4 >25 dBHL (no red circles in 1B).

Fig. 1 Hearing thresholds by age group in 2-year increments. The figure shows audiograms for the right ear stratified by age and sex. The top panel shows males with increasing age and the bottom females with increasing age. The green circles reveal the earliest age threshold at any frequency was >15 dBHL. The orange circles show the earliest age threshold at any frequency was >25 dBHL. The yellow circles show the earliest age average PTA4 was >15 dBHL. The blue circles show the earliest age any average frequency was >40 dBHL. The red circles reflect the earliest age that average PTA4 was >25 dBHL (not observed for females). The background white and gray scale show cutoffs for normal (0–15 dBHL), slight (>15–25 dBHL), mild (>25 dBHL-40 dBHL), and moderate (>40 dBHL) or greater hearing loss based on ASHA criteria.

As illustrated by [Fig. 1], thresholds at higher frequencies not captured by PTA4 are elevated at younger ages. For example, when average PTA4 increased above 15 dBHL (yellow circles) in males, average threshold at 6.0 kHz was 30.68 (SEM= 3.11) dBHL and at 8.0 kHz, 29.79 (SEM = 2.99) dBHL, consistent with a mild high frequency hearing loss on average. For females, these thresholds were 27.78 (SEM = 2.52) dBHL at 6.0 kHz and 31.69 (SEM = 3.24) dBHL at 8.0 kHz, also consistent with a mild high frequency hearing loss on average. Note: We also performed a stratification by race/ethnicity; the results showed earlier onset of hearing loss in Caucasians by 2 years compared with African Americans (data not shown).

To further inform our recommendation we also calculated the Articulation Index (AI) for each of the pure tone thresholds and cutoffs illustrated in [Fig. 1]. For example, the AI for PTA4 >15 dBHL (yellow circles) was 89% for males and 90% for females ([Table 4]). Hearing loss-based threshold at any frequency >15dBHL or any single frequency >25 dBHL was consistent with AI >90%. For threshold at any frequency >40 dBHL or PTA4 >25 dBHL the AI approached 80% and lower.

Table 4 Articulation index (%) data for males and females based on thresholds for five definitions of hearing loss. Data are shown for the age category corresponding to each hearing loss cutoff

	Articulation Index for Average Thresholds at Age Corresponding to Hearing Loss Cutoffs
Hearing Loss Cutoff	Male	Female
Any Frequency > 15 dB HL	98%	99%
Any Frequency > 25 dB HL	92%	95%
Any Frequency > 40 dB HL	83%	83%
PTA4 > 15 dB HL	89%	90%
PTA4 > 25 dB HL	71%	–

Abbreviation: PTA, Pure Tone Average.

dash: females in any age group did not reach PTA4 >25 dBHL.

Discussion

Our goal in this analysis was to determine age ranges that show evidence of hearing loss based on pure tone thresholds to inform hearing screening recommendations for adults. For the function of primary prevention, our data suggest screening should initiate at ∼30y for males and 35y for females, the ages before average hearing thresholds at a single frequency fall into the range of slight hearing loss. Screening hearing at this age would allow baseline thresholds to be established and patient counseling on prevention strategies. For the function of secondary prevention (early identification), we recommend hearing screening in adults at the age of 45y for males and 55y for females. This recommendation corresponds to the age of average slight hearing loss (> 15 dBHL) based on PTA4, aligns with an average AI of 89–90%, and is the approximate age that any individual threshold, on average, is elevated above 25 dBHL or mild hearing loss. As observed in [Fig. 1], younger age groups do show elevated thresholds at 6.0 and 8.0 kHz, but the impact on the AI is minimal. Screening at the proposed ages would allow for early identification of hearing loss, establishment of baseline hearing sensitivity for counseling on strategies for minimizing progression of hearing loss, and early intervention with aural rehabilitation or amplification.

Our data also highlight the limitations of the commonly used PTA4 in capturing early evidence of high frequency hearing loss that can affect speech understanding or that may be related to other auditory complaints such as tinnitus. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines hearing loss as PTA4 >25 dBHL (WHO, 2018).[18] However, we observed that when males on average had a PTA4 >25 dBHL (60–61y) they had on average thresholds at individual high frequencies (3.0, 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 kHz) > 40 dBHL. Examination of thresholds by age group reveals that females, on average, never reached an average PTA4 >25 dBHL despite thresholds at individual mid and high frequencies (3.0, 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 kHz) corresponding to mild to moderate degrees of hearing loss. That is, by the time there is evidence of an average mild hearing loss on the basis of the WHO criteria, thresholds at high frequencies have already reached levels consistent with a moderate hearing loss on average. The WHO has recently adopted the Global Burden of Disease Expert Group on Hearing Loss recommended cutoff for the PTA4 to be revised to > 20 dBHL (Olusanya et al, 2019).[19] The age that males on average reached a 20 dBHL PTA4 was 54–55 years of age; females was 62–63 years of age. Even with the more stringent definition of “normal” hearing, when the average audiogram reaches PTA4 > 20 dBHL, thresholds at 3.0 kHz and higher are on average at moderate degrees of hearing loss, and the articulation index for males and females with PTA4 > 20dBHL drops to 80% and 90% respectively.

The use of PTA as a measure of hearing status has a long history with the original application for predicting speech understanding and an average of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kHz (Fletcher, 1929),[20] called the Speech PTA. In 1942, a procedure was proposed using thresholds for 0.25–4.0 kHz to determine percent hearing loss for medico-legal purposes (called the AMA method) with numerous variations over time (Glorig, 1961).[21] After several iterations, it was soon realized that this limited frequency range, though predictive of speech performance in quiet, was not reflective of speech understanding in more realistic settings with competing noise. In 1979, the threshold at 3.0 kHz was added to the formula to account for hearing in noise (AAO, 1979).[22] Still, research as early as the 1960s up to today support the importance of thresholds up to 8.0 kHz for speech understanding, particularly for speech sounds like /s/ and /z/ and in considering the effects of competing noise (e.g., Kryter et al, 1962; Suter, 1978; Lippman, 1996; Stelmachowicz et al, 2004).[23] [24] [25] [26] More recently, the importance of hearing beyond conventional testing limits of 8.0 kHz have been highlighted, supporting the role of extended high frequency hearing (> 8.0 kHz) in speech understanding, localization of sound, and music appreciation (e.g., Moore et al, 2012; Zadeh et al, 2019; Hunter et al, 2020).[27] [28] [29]

We also completed a “high-risk” analysis. We observed that in addition to age and sex, Caucasians, persons reporting tinnitus, persons with perceived hearing difficulty, persons reporting use of firearms, and persons diagnosed with diabetes have increased odds of hearing loss in multivariate models. These relationships are not surprising and supported by previous research. Race/ethnicity differences in hearing loss prevalence have been well described in the literature with African Americans in general having lower prevalence (Hoffman et al, 2017).[6] It is also well known that persons with tinnitus and perceived hearing difficulty have increased odds of elevated audiometric thresholds (Curti et al, 2019).[30] Consistent with other reports, diabetes had an independent relationship to hearing loss (Bainbridge et al, 2011).[31] Firearms can produce high intensity impulse sounds with significant risk for hearing loss. Screening hearing of persons that use firearms can present an opportunity to discuss prevention strategies including consistent and appropriate use of hearing protection and suppressors (Lobarinas et al., 2017).[32] We recommend adults with these “high-risk” factors adhere to the proposed age recommendations for hearing screening and be made aware of additional “risk” for hearing loss related to firearm use and diabetes.

A limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design, which prohibits inferences regarding causality. Additionally, some covariate data were obtained via self-report (e.g., smoking status), which may result in over- or under-estimates. Last, our recommendations may not be generalizable beyond the age and race/ethnicity groups evaluated.

Conclusion

In summary, this analysis suggests the screening ages of adults for hearing loss based on age-related changes in pure tone audiometry. Distinct age-based recommendations are made for males and females. It is our position that such screening may result in earlier detection of hearing loss and more timely intervention, therefore decreasing burden on the healthcare system.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Jordan and Baiduc should be considered joint first authors

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.

• References

• 1 Bower CM, St John R. The otolaryngologist's role in newborn hearing screening and early intervention. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2014; 47 (05) 631-649
• 2 Yoshinaga-Itano C, Coulter D, Thomson V. The Colorado Newborn Hearing Screening Project: effects on speech and language development for children with hearing loss. J Perinatol 2000; 20 (8 Pt 2): S132-S137
• 3 Young NM, Reilly BK, Burke L. Limitations of universal newborn hearing screening in early identification of pediatric cochlear implant candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 137 (03) 230-234
• 4 Mehra S, Eavey RD, Keamy Jr DG. The epidemiology of hearing impairment in the United States: newborns, children, and adolescents. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140 (04) 461-472
• 5 Goman AM, Lin FR. Prevalence of Hearing Loss by Severity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2016; 106 (10) 1820-1822
• 6 Hoffman HJ, Dobie RA, Losonczy KG, Themann CL, Flamme GA. Declining Prevalence of Hearing Loss in US Adults Aged 20 to 69 Years. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 143 (03) 274-285
• 7 Hodkinson HM. Mental impairment in the elderly. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1973; 7 (04) 305-317
• 8 Lin FR, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and falls among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172 (04) 369-371
• 9 Livingston G, Sommerlad A, Orgeta V. et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. Lancet 2017; 390 (10113): 2673-2734
• 10 Mick P, Kawachi I, Lin FR. The association between hearing loss and social isolation in older adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 150 (03) 378-384
• 11 Golub JS, Brickman AM, Ciarleglio AJ, Schupf N, Luchsinger JA. Association of Subclinical Hearing Loss With Cognitive Performance. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 146 (01) 57-67
• 12 Moyer VA. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hearing loss in older adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (09) 655-661
• 13 Healthy People. Hearing and Other Sensory or Communication Disorders. ( n.d. ). 2020
• 14 Curtin LR, Mohadjer LK, Dohrmann SM. et al. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample Design, 1999-2006. Vital Health Stat 2 2012; 155 (155) 1-39
• 15 Clark JG. Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. ASHA 1981; 23 (07) 493-500
• 16 Killion MC, Mueller GH. Twenty years later: A NEW Count-The-Dots method. Hear J 2010; 63 (01) 10-17
• 17 USDA. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. (n.d.). Retrieved October 07, 2020, from www.cnpp.usda.gov/HealthyEatingIndex-Archive.htm
• 18 WHO, Addressing the rising prevalence of hearing loss. World Health Organization. 2018
• 19 Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss grades and the International classification of functioning, disability and health . Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97 (10) 725-728
• 20 Fletcher H. 1929. Speech and hearing. Van Nostrand.
• 21 Glorig A. The problem of noise in industry. Am J Public Health Nations Health 1961; 51 (09) 1338-1346
• 22 American Academy Otolaryngology and American Council of Otolaryngology. Guide for the evaluation of hearing handicap. JAMA 1979; 241 (19) 2055-2059
• 23 Kryter KD, Williams C, Green DM. Auditory acuity and the perception of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1962; 34 (9, Pt. I): 1217-1223
• 24 Lippmann RP. Accurate consonant perception without mid-frequency speech energy. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process 1996; 4 (01) 66-69
• 25 Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Novel-word learning in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (01) 47-56
• 26 Suter AH. The Ability of Mildly Hearing-Impaired Individuals to Discriminate Speech in Noise. Environment Protect Agency 1978; 550 (09) 78-100
• 27 Hunter LL, Monson BB, Moore DR. et al. Extended high frequency hearing and speech perception implications in adults and children. Hear Res 2020; 397: 107922
• 28 Moore BCJ. Effects of bandwidth, compression speed, and gain at high frequencies on preferences for amplified music. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (03) 159-172
• 29 Motlagh Zadeh L, Silbert NH, Sternasty K, Swanepoel W, Hunter LL, Moore DR. Extended high-frequency hearing enhances speech perception in noise. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116 (47) 23753-23759
• 30 Curti A, Degruy JA, Spankovich C. et al. Relationship of Overall Cardiovascular Health and Hearing Loss in the Jackson Heart Study Population. Laryngoscope 2019; 00: 1-6
• 31 Bainbridge KE, Hoffman HJ, Cowie CC. Risk factors for hearing impairment among U.S. adults with diabetes: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (07) 1540-1545
• 32 Lobarinas E, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Evidence of “hidden hearing loss” following noise exposures that produce robust TTS and ABR wave-I amplitude reductions. Hear Res 2017; 349: 155-163

Publication History

Received: 12 February 2021

Accepted: 21 July 2021

Article published online:
01 September 2022