Hearing Loss Prevalence Among Older US Adults: HRS 2016 to 2018 Hearing Screener Data
Janet S. Choi, Raaif Bokhari, Zachary Thompson, Jung Ki Kim, Eun Young Choi, Wendy J. Mack, Jennifer A. Ailshire, Eileen M. CrimminsAbstract
Objective
To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss among US adults based on a hearing screening device (HearCheck) in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), and to compare these estimates with prevalence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) based on pure‐tone audiometry.
Study Design
Cross‐sectional.
Setting
HRS 2016 to 2018 and NHANES 2015 to 2020.
Methods
Study cohort included HRS participants aged ≥55 years who completed HearCheck hearing screening (n = 12,756). Hearing loss was defined using a device score<6 in the better hearing ear. For NHANES audiometry data (n = 2552), hearing loss was defined using pre‐defined cut‐offs of the speech‐frequency pure‐tone average (PTA). Prevalence was estimated using survey weights, and the estimates were compared based on two‐proportion z ‐tests.
Results
Among adults aged ≥55 years, the prevalence of hearing loss in HRS was 54.8% (95% CI, 53.7%‐56.0%), which closely matched the estimated prevalence in NHANES at 54.5% (51.1%‐57.8%) when hearing loss was defined as PTA ≥ 20dBHL ( P = .82). Further comparing the estimates, the prevalence of mild hearing difficulties (HearCheck score 3‐5) in HRS at 48.8% (47.6%‐49.9%) matched with the prevalence of mild to moderate hearing loss (20‐49dBHL) at 48.2% (45.4%‐51.1%) in NHANES ( P = .70). The prevalence of moderate to severe difficulties (HearCheck score 0‐2) at 6.1% (5.6%‐6.5%) in HRS matched with the prevalence of moderately severe or worse hearing loss (≥50dBHL) in NHANES at 6.2% (4.8%‐8.0%) ( P = .82).
Conclusion
Hearing loss prevalence estimates derived from a hearing screening device in HRS closely matched those obtained from audiometry in NHANES. While standardized audiometry is preferred, hearing screening tools offer a useful alternative for objectively assessing hearing in large‐scale population studies.