An Approach to Self-Assessed Auditory Wellness in Older Adults

Humes, Larry E.

doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001001

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the hybrid classification increases from there, so does the selfreported difficulty with those in the next audiogram classification (N2) having significantly greater hearing loss and more self-reported hearing difficulty, generally corresponding to an auditory wellness rating of "good" (see Figures 8 and 9). Such individuals should be considered as viable candidates for intervention, although this does not necessarily mean candidates for hearing aids (Humes, 2021). These observations are consistent with those made years ago regarding the impact of even slight amounts of high-frequency hearing loss on everyday function (Giolas et al, 1979;Lamb et al, 1983;Owens & Schubert, 1977;Ventry & Weinstein, 1982;.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…For now, until further analyses can be performed in the future, only those with no hearing thresholds exceeding 20 dB HL in either ear should be considered to have "normal" hearing with no need for intervention. As noted above (see Figure 8), on the auditory wellness scale proposed by Humes (2021), this corresponds to "excellent" auditory wellness. As the hybrid classification increases from there, so does the selfreported difficulty with those in the next audiogram classification (N2) having significantly greater hearing loss and more self-reported hearing difficulty, generally corresponding to an auditory wellness rating of "good" (see Figures 8 and 9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…N2, on the other hand, shows an auditory wellness classification based on the mean HHI-S score of "good," whereas the next two hybrid classes, N345Mi123 and Mi4, fall within the "fair" auditory wellness category. Humes (2021), based on the proposed model of auditory wellness, suggested that only those in the "excellent" category would be unlikely to benefit from intervention to improve communication or other hearing difficulties. Importantly, the N1, N2, and N345 audiometric groups fall within the WHOnew HI category of "normal" and would most likely not be considered candidates for intervention or assistance using that classification system.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of course, another approach to determining candidacy for intervention clinically would be to abandon reliance on the pure-tone audiogram all together and instead make use of self-report measures like the HHI-S. As noted by the developers of the HHIE (Ventry & Weinstein, 1982 and more recently reinforced by Humes (2021), selfreport measures like the HHI-S capture the bodily impairment domain of a person's function, the same domain captured by the audiogram, but more broadly tap the other domains pertinent to an individual's function, activity limitations, and participation restrictions (WHO, 2001). Thus, a single self-report measure, such as the HHI-S or HHIE-total, may suffice to determine candidacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The letters comprising each hybrid label along the x-axis represent the WHO-new hearing impairment categories of "normal" (N), "mild" (Mi), "moderate" (Mod), "moderately severe" (MS), and "S," with the numeral corresponding to associated WARHICS Levels 1-7. Also shown along the right ordinate are auditory wellness categories proposed recently byHumes (2021) and based on the HHI-S scores. HHI-S = Hearing Handicap Inventory-Screener; WARHICS = Wisconsin Age-Related Hearing Impairment Classification System; WHO = World Health Organization; y = years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Further Evaluation and Application of the Wisconsin Age-Related Hearing Impairment Classification System

Humes

2021

Am J Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The primary purpose of this report is to further evaluate the Wisconsin Age-Related Hearing Impairment Classification System (WARHICS) scheme for the classification of audiograms obtained from older adults, ages 50–89 years. Method This was a retrospective analysis of data from 11,729 older adults included in two population, one community, and two clinical data sets. To aid in the interpretation of the audiogram classifications, the functional significance of audiogram categories was evaluated using Hearing Handicap Inventory–Screen scores available for 10,330 of these same individuals. Results A WARHICS level could be obtained successfully for 99.5% of the 11,729 audiograms included in these analyses. It was applied successfully to population, community, and clinical samples. WARHICS Level 8 audiograms, corresponding to a broad profound hearing impairment (pure-tone thresholds from 500 to 8000 Hz, all > 80 dB HL), were very rare (.1% prevalence). WARHICS subtypes, designed to identify those with high-frequency notched audiograms or flat audiograms, occurred only 3%–6% of the time, depending on the data set. When compared to the current hearing-impairment grading system of the World Health Organization (WHO), several WARHICS levels fell within a given WHO hearing-impairment grade suggesting a finer grained categorization by the WARHICS. The Hearing Handicap Inventory–Screen scores provided justification for the fine-grained categorization according to the WARHICS. It is also demonstrated that the WARHICS levels could be extended to the classification of audiograms from all adults, regardless of age. Finally, a WARHICS-WHO hybrid classification scheme is proposed for future evaluation. Conclusions Although the WARHICS was developed from a population data set, it was demonstrated here to be applicable to population, community, and clinical data sets for adults aged 50–89 years. The applicability of the WARHICS or a WARHICS-WHO hybrid to population data sets that included younger adults suggests that this classification system has the potential to be applied even more broadly than just to age-related hearing loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Further Evaluation and Application of the Wisconsin Age-Related Hearing Impairment Classification System

Humes

2021

Am J Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Need for a Universal Hearing Metric—Is Pure-Tone Average the Answer?

Humes

Weinstein

2021

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

spend more time discussing or analyzing or surveying or debating the most efficacious course, but at some point we need to move forward, and that time is now. Thanks to ABOHNS, real progress has been made over the past few years in developing the CPO rationale, criteria, and examination. Frankly, we do not know any prac-ticing pediatric otolaryngologists who are looking forward to taking a written examination (an understatement), but nearly all acknowledge that CPO subcertification will strengthen the specialty and, in the long run, ultimately lead to better care for children with complex pediatric otolaryngologic diseases.

show abstract