Background: hearing loss has been associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Studies have not assessed whether hearing difficulties (HD) that interfere with daily activities as reported by partners can be a marker for increased risk for cognitive decline and impairment. Objective: to assess the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between informant-based HD, which interfere with daily activities and the risk for MCI and dementia. Methods: the study included 4812 participants without dementia, enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (mean age (SD) 73.7 (9.6) years) with cognitive evaluation and informant-based report on participant’s HD that interfere significantly with daily activities at baseline and for every 15 months. Cox proportional hazards models (utilising time-dependent HD status and age as the time scale) were used to examine HD and the risk for MCI or dementia, and mixed-effects models (allowing for random subject-specific intercepts and slopes) were used to examine the relationship between HD and cognitive decline. Results: about, 981 participants had HD and 612 (12.7%) had prevalent MCI at baseline; 759 participants developed incident MCI and 273 developed incident dementia. In cognitively unimpaired participants at baseline, those with HD had higher risk for MCI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.10, 1.51), P = 0.002; adjusting for sex, years of education). In participants without dementia, those with HD had higher risk for dementia (HR: 1.39, 95% CI, (1.08–1.79), P = 0.011; adjusting sex and education). In individuals with MCI, HD was associated with modestly greater cognitive decline. Conclusions: informant-based HD was associated with increased risk for MCI and dementia.

The ICF brief core set is a valuable tool for use in audiologic rehabilitation clinical practice and research design.

This article introduces the Consumer Ear Disease Risk Assessment (CEDRA) tool. CEDRA is a brief questionnaire designed to screen for targeted ear diseases. It offers an opportunity for consumers to self-screen for disease before seeking a hearing device and may be used by clinicians to help their patients decide the appropriate path to follow in hearing healthcare. Here we provide highlights of previously published validation in the context of a more thorough description of CEDRA’s development and implementation. CEDRA’s sensitivity and specificity, using a cut-off score of 4 or higher, was 90% and 72%, respectively, relative to neurotologist diagnoses in the initial training sample used to create the scoring algorithm (n = 246). On a smaller independent test sample (n = 61), CEDRA’s sensitivity and specificity were 76% and 80%, respectively. CEDRA has readability levels similar to many other patient-oriented questionnaires in hearing healthcare, and informal reports from pilot CEDRA-providers indicate that the majority of patients can complete it in less than 10 min. As the hearing healthcare landscape changes and provider intercession is no longer mandated, CEDRA provides a measure of safety without creating a barrier to access.

Objectives: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Core Sets for Hearing Loss (CSHL) consists of short lists of categories from the entire ICF classification that are thought to be the most relevant for describing the functioning of persons with hearing loss. A comprehensive intake that covers all factors included in the ICF CSHL holds the promise of developing a tailored treatment plan that fully complements the patient’s needs. The Comprehensive CSHL contains 117 categories and serves as a guide for multiprofessional, comprehensive assessment. The Brief CSHL includes 27 of the 117 categories and represents the minimal spectrum of functioning of persons with HL for single-discipline encounters or clinical trials. The authors first sought to benchmark the extent to which Audiologist (AUD) and Otorhinolaryngologist (ORL) discipline-specific intake documentation, as well as Mayo Clinic’s multidisciplinary intake documentation, captures ICF CSHL categories. Design: A retrospective study design including 168 patient records from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Audiology of Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Anonymized intake documentation forms and reports were selected from patient records filed between January 2016 and May 2017. Data were extracted from the intake documentation forms and reports and linked to ICF categories using pre-established linking rules. “Overlap,” defined as the percentage of ICF CSHL categories represented in the intake documentation, was calculated across document types. In addition, extra non–ICF CSHL categories (ICF categories that are not part of the CSHL) and extra constructs (constructs that are not part of the ICF classification) found in the patient records were described. Results: The total overlap of multidisciplinary intake documentation with ICF CSHL categories was 100% for the Brief CSHL and 50% for the Comprehensive CSHL. Brief CSHL overlap for discipline-specific documentation fell short at 70% for both AUD and ORL. Important extra non–ICF CSHL categories were identified and included “sleep function” and “motor-related functions and activities,” which mostly were reported in relation to tinnitus and vestibular disorders. Conclusion: The multidisciplinary intake documentation of Mayo Clinic showed 100% overlap with the Brief CSHL, while important areas of nonoverlap were identified in AUD- and ORL-specific reports. The ICF CSHL provides a framework for describing each hearing-impaired individual’s unique capabilities and needs in ways currently not documented by audiological and otological evaluations, potentially setting the stage for more effective individualized patient care. Efforts to further validate the ICF CSHL may require the involvement of multidisciplinary institutions with commonly shared electronic health records to adequately capture the breath of the ICF CSHL.