Parents of children with hearing loss: Impact and exposure of COVID-19 on mental health.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact and exposure of COVID-19 on parent mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for parents of children with hearing loss. The survey was distributed via an electronic survey to families subscribed to a pediatric program listserv as part of a university medical center. Fifty-five percent of parents reported elevated symptoms of anxiety, while 16% scored in the clinically significant range for depression. In addition, 20% of parents reported elevated symptoms of PTSD. Liner regressions found that impact of COVID-19 predicted anxiety symptoms, while both impact and exposure predicted depression and PTSD symptoms. In addition, both impact and exposure predicted COVID related parental distress. Exposure and impact of COVID-19 has had negative consequences on parents of children with hearing loss. Although exposure influenced parental mental health, impact uniquely affected depression and PTSD. Results highlight the need for mental health screening, as well implementation of psychological interventions using telehealth or in-person consultations. Future work should focus on post-pandemic challenges, including long-term psychological functioning due to the established relationship between parental mental health and pediatric outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of newborn hearing loss.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unexpected disruptions in patient care, including adherence to the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) 1-3-6 guidelines. These guidelines mandate newborn hearing screening (NHS) by 1 month of age, diagnosis of hearing loss (HL) by 3 months, and referral to Early Intervention by 6 months. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on EHDI benchmarks in a major US city to help clinicians address current needs and prepare for future disruptive events. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed for all patients who did not pass NHS at two tertiary care centers between March 2018 and March 2022. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the periods of time before, during, and after the COVID-19 Massachusetts State of Emergency (SOE). Demographics, medical history, NHS results, Auditory Brainstem Response results, and hearing aid (HA) intervention data were collected. Two-sampled independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to compute rate and time outcomes. RESULTS: 30,773 newborns underwent NHS and 678 failed NHS. There was no difference in 1-month benchmark NHS rates, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis rate post-SOE COVID (91.7%; p = 0.002), and increased 6-month benchmark HA intervention rate post-SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (88.9% vs. 44.4%; p = 0.027). Mean time to NHS was lower during SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (1.9 days vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.038) and mean time to HL diagnosis was higher during SOE COVID (47.5 days; p < 0.001). Lost to follow-up (LTF) rate at HL diagnosis decreased post-SOE (4.8%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: No differences in EHDI 1-3-6 benchmark rates between pre-COVID and SOE COVID patients were observed. However, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis and 6-month benchmark HA intervention rates and a decreased LTF rate at 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis were observed post-SOE COVID.

Prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 'Hearing loss' has been reported as a clinical atypical symptom in some COVID-19 patients. We searched and collated the existing literature for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of hearing loss during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: An exhaustive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other sources from the inception of the database until 31st December 2022. The Search terms were set to: 'COVID-19', 'SARS-CoV-2', '2019-nCoV', 'hearing impairment', 'hearing loss', 'auditory dysfunction'. The literature data meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Prevalence was pooled from individual studies using a randomized effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in the final analysis, involving 14281 patients with COVID-19 infection, of which 482 patients had varying degrees of hearing loss. Our final meta-analysis demonstrated that the prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19-positive patients was 8.2% (95%CI 5.0-12.1). Subgroup analysis of age showed that the prevalence of middle-aged and older patients aged 50-60 and over 60 years was 20.6% and 14.8%, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of patients aged 30-40 (4.9%) and 40-50 years (6.0%). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss is one of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 infection, compared with other diseases, it is less likely to attract the attention of clinical experts or researchers. Raising awareness of this disease can not only enable early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss, and improve the quality of life of patients, but also enhance our vigilance against virus transmission, which has important clinical and practical significance.

Can Digital Communication Protect Against Depression for Older Adults With Hearing and Vision Impairment During COVID-19?

OBJECTIVES: During social isolation imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, older adults with impaired hearing and vision potentially experienced more communication challenges, increasing their risk for poor mental health. Digital communication (e.g., video calls, e-mail/text/social media) may alleviate in-person isolation and protect against depression. We addressed this question using data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, a nationally representative panel study of community-dwelling older adults. METHOD: Two thousand five hundred fifty-eight adults aged 55 and older comprised the analytic sample. Interviewer rating at baseline (2015-2016) classified those with vision impairment (VI) or hearing impairment (HI). Olfactory impairment (OI) was measured by objective testing. During COVID-19 (2020-2021), respondents reported how often they contacted nonhousehold family or friends and whether this was by phone, e-mail/text/social media, video, or in-person. They also quantified the frequency of depressive feelings. RESULTS: Older adults with VI or HI but not OI at baseline were significantly less likely to report regular use of video calling and e-mail/text/social media during the pandemic compared to those without impairment. Sensory impairments did not affect the frequency of phone or in-person communication. Adults with VI or HI were more likely to experience frequent depressive feelings during COVID-19. Video calls mitigated this negative effect of VI- and HI-associated depressive feelings in a dose-dependent manner. DISCUSSION: Among communication modalities, video calling had a protective effect against depressive feelings for people with sensory impairment during social isolation. Improving access to and usability of video communication for older adults with sensory impairment could be a strategy to improve their mental health.

Is intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection a risk factor for infant hearing loss?

PURPOSE: To determine whether exposure to intrauterine COVID-19 infection causes congenital or late-onset hearing loss in infants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The hearing screening results of infants born in a tertiary hospital between March 2020 and April 2022 with and without a history of intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection (36 infants each) were retrospectively analyzed within one month after birth in all infants and additionally at six months after intrauterine COVID-19 infection exposure in the study group. The automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test was used for the hearing evaluation. RESULTS: The polymerase chain reaction test was negative in study group exposed to intrauterine COVID-19 infection. The number of infants admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and the length of ICU stay were significantly higher in this group (p < 0.01). Six infants (16.6 %) in the study group failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but five of these infants passed the second AABR test. A bilateral severe sensorineural hearing loss was detected in one infant (2.77 %). All the infants in the study group underwent the AABR test again at six months, and all infants, except this infant, passed the test. In the control group, five infants (13.88 %) failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but they all passed the second test. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to COVID-19 infection in the intrauterine period does not cause congenital or late-onset hearing loss (within six months) in infants; therefore, gestational COVID-19 infection is not a risk factor for infant hearing loss.

'All of a sudden, you know, you can't go to these services, because of the risk of infection': Audiological service considerations at residential care homes for older persons during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:  Residential care homes for older persons were especially affected during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns which resulted in limited social interactions and service provision. Communication became challenging due to the prophylactic use of masks and social distancing. OBJECTIVES:  This qualitative research study set out to explore audiological service considerations in residential care homes for older persons during the COVID-19 restrictions. METHOD:  Through purposive sampling, nine managers from residential care homes for older persons in Johannesburg participated in semi-structured, online interviews. The transcriptions of these recorded interviews underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS:  Managers employed various strategies to attend to residents' audiological needs, audiological health, hearing aid use, and hearing aid provision. Furthermore, it transpired that other health related services were prioritised over audiological services in general, but especially during the pandemic lockdowns. Managers reported that staff had to use various communication strategies due to COVID-19 precautions and that masks and social distancing made communication more challenging for residents with hearing loss. Moreover, isolation and modified service provision were extremely taxing on residents. CONCLUSION:  This study highlights the need for continued audiological services at residential care homes, but also the need to balance audiological needs with other health needs because these seem to be prioritised over hearing loss, especially in this population who may have limited agency and choice in the health care options available to them. Furthermore, adapted strategies need to be considered to support communication considering COVID-19 precautions so that communicative difficulties do not exacerbate lockdown isolation.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities.

Importance: Despite persistent care delivery inequities, limited studies have assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of and factors in COVID-19 vaccination among US adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults who participated in the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey from April 2021 through March 2022. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccine initiation, vaccine series completion, and determinants of health care access, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Exposures: Vision disability (serious difficulty seeing even with eyeglasses or blindness) and hearing disability (serious difficulty hearing even with a hearing aid or deafness). Main Outcomes and Measures: First dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted estimated probabilities and 95% CIs of COVID-19 vaccine initiation were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for survey week, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Results: In this study of 916 085 US adults (weighted population, 192 719 992; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.9] years; 52.0% women), most participants had initiated the COVID-19 vaccine series (82.7%). Adults with serious difficulty seeing (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -7.5% to -5.1%; P < .001) and blindness (mean difference, -20.1%; 95% CI, -25.1% to -15.0%; P < .001) had lower vaccination rates compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Adults with serious difficulty hearing (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.7%; P = .003) and deafness (mean difference, -17.7%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -13.6%; P < .001) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with blindness (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -11.1% to -1.5%; P = .009) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with deafness (mean difference, -5.5%; 95% CI, -9.2% to -1.9%; P = .003) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities; this information may inform initiatives to promote equitable and accessible vaccination. Additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among adults with vision or hearing disabilities and to address disparities.

Hearing loss and the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing loss is an important public health problem. Its causes vary, including infections, noise, and aging. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in April 2020 in Japan. During the pandemic, people were urged to stay at home and drastically changed their lifestyles. This study aimed to examine hearing loss before and during the pandemic. The prevalence during the pandemic after April 2020 was compared for the period in 2019. Study subjects were those who received health checkups in both periods. Hearing loss was defined as a hearing threshold of > 30 dB at 1 kHz and > 40 dB at 4 kHz in either ear using pure-tone audiometry. RESULTS: A total of 2367 persons presented in both 2019 and 2020. The overall rates of hearing loss were 9.5% and 13.2% before and after the pandemic, respectively. After controlling for age, sex, current smoking, regular exercise and alcohol consumption, the rate of hearing loss showed a significant increase in 2020 (p = < 0.0001). With age stratification, an increase was observed in the participants aged < 40 years (1.3% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001) and 40-59 years (7.2% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.001). Further studies are needed to confirm the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hearing loss.

Perceptions of Telehealth Services for Hearing Loss in South Africa's Public Healthcare System.

Telehealth promises increased access to hearing healthcare services, primarily in areas where hearing healthcare resources are limited, such as within the South African public healthcare system. Telehealth for hearing healthcare is especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic, where physical distancing has been essential. This study aimed to describe audiologists' perceptions regarding telehealth services for hearing loss within South Africa's public healthcare system. This study was divided into two phases. During Phase 1, 97 audiologists completed an electronic survey regarding their perceptions of telehealth for hearing loss within South African public sector hospitals. Synchronous virtual focus-group discussions were conducted during Phase 2. Results indicated that audiologists recognized telehealth services' potential to improve hearing healthcare efficiency within the public sector, and most (84.1%) were willing to use it. However, telehealth's actual uptake was low despite almost doubling during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prominent perceived barriers to telehealth were primarily related to hospital resources, including the unavailability of equipment for the remote hearing/specialized assessments, internet-related barriers, and limited IT infrastructure. An increased understanding of telehealth in South Africa's public healthcare system will assist in identifying and in improving potential barriers to telehealth, including hospital resources and infrastructure.

Communication with face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic for adults with hearing loss.

Face masks have become common protective measures in community and workplace environments to help reduce the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Face masks can make it difficult to hear and understand speech, particularly for people with hearing loss. An aim of our cross-sectional survey was to investigate the extent that face masks as a health and safety protective measure against SARS-CoV-2 have affected understanding speech in the day-to-day lives of adults with deafness or hearing loss, and identify possible strategies to improve communication accessibility. We analyzed closed- and open-ended survey responses of 656 adults who self-identified as D/deaf or hard of hearing. Over 80% of respondents reported difficulty with understanding others who wore face masks. The proportion of those experiencing difficulty increased with increasing hearing loss severity. Recommended practical supports to facilitate communication and social interaction included more widespread use of clear face masks to aid lip-reading; improved clarity in policy guidance on face masks; and greater public awareness and understanding about ways to more clearly communicate with adults with hearing loss while wearing face masks.

Adults With Hearing Loss Demonstrate Resilience During COVID-19 Pandemic: Applications for Postpandemic Services.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has produced unique challenges for persons with hearing loss. There is a unique concern that adults with hearing loss may be more susceptible to isolation than adults with normal hearing. PURPOSE: This study explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of older adults with and without hearing loss. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a longitudinal study with pre-COVID-19 and six mid-COVID-19 interviews, spanning from March 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020. STUDY SAMPLE: The study enrolled 12 participants with hearing aids and 12 with cochlear implants aged 55-80 years that were compared to 18 age-matched adults with hearing within normal limits. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Surveys were completed to evaluate the impact of time alone and loneliness, social contact, depression, and the impact of masks on hearing. A mixed-effects statistical model was used to analyze each question. RESULTS: Participants commonly reported stress and anxiety during monthly video calls. Adults with varying degrees of hearing loss reported decreased social interaction and increased stress during the pandemic, similar to the rates observed by participants with healthy hearing. Face coverings were commonly reported to affect the intelligibility of conversational speech. Participants with hearing loss found satisfactory methods for maintaining social connection during the pandemic that they hope will continue once restrictions ease fully. CONCLUSIONS: Participants from the hearing loss groups in this study were frustrated by challenges posed by facial masks and were resilient in their ability to cope with COVID-19 and found the use of technology to be helpful. Audiologists are encouraged to use these successful electronic means of connecting with their patients even after restrictions are fully lifted.

Gender Modifies the Association of Cognition With Age-Related Hearing Impairment in the Health and Retirement Study.

Introduction: Despite growing recognition of hearing loss as a risk factor for late life cognitive disorders, sex and gender analysis of this association has been limited. Elucidating this is one means to advocate for holistic medicine by considering the psychosocial attributes of people. With a composite Gender Score (GS), we aimed to assess this among aging participants (50+) from the 2016 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) cohort. Methods: The GS was derived from gender-related variables in HRS by factor analyses and logistic regression, ranging from 0 (toward masculinity) to 100 (toward femininity). GS tertiles were also used to indicate three gender types (GS tertile 1: lower GS indicates masculinity; GS tertile 2: middle GS indicates androgyny; GS tertile 3: higher GS indicates femininity). Univariate followed by multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of cognitive impairment (assessed by adapted Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status) from hearing acuity, as well as to explore the interactions of sex and gender with hearing acuity. The risk of cognitive impairment among hearing-impaired participants was assessed using multivariable models including sex and gender as exposure variables. Results: Five variables (taking risks, loneliness, housework, drinking, and depression) were retained to compute the GS for each participant. The distribution of GS between sexes partly overlapped. After adjusting for confounding factors, the OR for cognitive impairment associated with hearing impairment was significantly higher (OR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.15), and this association was not modified by female sex (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.46, 1.27), but by androgynous gender (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.81). In the multivariable models for participants with hearing impairment, androgynous and feminine gender, as opposed to female sex, was associated with lower odds of cognitive impairment (OR of GS tertile 2 = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.84; OR of GS tertile 3 = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.87; OR of female sex = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.08). Conclusions: Hearing impairment was associated with cognitive impairment among older people, and this association may be attenuated by a more feminine GS.

A longitudinal community-based ototoxicity monitoring programme and treatment effects for drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, Western Cape.

BACKGROUND:  South Africa has a high burden of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB) and until recently, ototoxic aminoglycosides were predominant in treatment regimens. Community-based ototoxicity monitoring programmes (OMPs) have been implemented for early detection of hearing loss and increased patient access. OBJECTIVES:  A longitudinal study was conducted to describe the service delivery characteristics of a community-based OMP for DRTB patients facilitated by CHWs as well as observed ototoxic hearing loss in this population. METHOD:  A descriptive retrospective record review of longitudinal ototoxicity monitoring of 194 DRTB patients undergoing treatment at community-based clinics in the city of Cape Town between 2013 and 2017. RESULTS:  Follow-up rates between consecutive monitoring assessments reached as high as 80.6% for patients assessed by CHWs. Few patients (14.2% - 32.6%) were assessed with the regularity (≥ 6 assessments) and frequency required for effective ototoxicity monitoring, with assessments conducted, on average, every 53.4-64.3 days. Following DRTB treatment, 51.5% of patients presented with a significant ototoxic shift meeting one or more of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) criteria. Deterioration in hearing thresholds was bilateral and most pronounced at high frequencies (4 kHz - 8 kHz). The presence of pre-existing hearing loss, human immunodeficiency virus co-infection and a history of noise exposure were significant predictors of ototoxicity in patients. CONCLUSION:  DRTB treatment with kanamycin resulted in significant deterioration of hearing longitudinally, predominantly at high frequencies. With ongoing training and supportive supervision, CHWs can facilitate community-based ototoxicity monitoring of DRTB patients. Current protocols and guidelines may require reassessment for appropriate community-based ototoxicity monitoring.

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity. RESULTS: Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

Does COVID-19 have an impact on hearing?

BACKGROUNDS: SARS-CoV-2 is known to be a neurotrophic virus. However, the effect of this virus on the hearing system is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the possible effect of COVID-19 on hearing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty healthcare workers who had COVID-19 after hearing evaluation with pure tone audiometry (PTA) for any reason in the last 1 year were included in the study. PTA and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) tests were performed in 15 of 30 patients during the active infection period. For all 30 patients, otoscopic examination plus PTA and TEOAE tests were performed at the end of the first month after their treatment. RESULTS: When the PTA results of 30 patients (60 ears) before and after COVID-19 were compared, a significant decrease in hearing level was found only at 1000 Hz (p < .05). There were no significant differences at other frequencies. When the PTA and TEAOE test results of 15 patients (30 ears) that were performed during and after COVID-19 were compared, no significant differences were found. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: We conclude that COVID-19 may cause hearing loss. However, this result needs to be confirmed with comprehensive studies to be conducted in larger patient groups.

Investigating tinnitus subgroups based on hearing-related difficulties.

PURPOSE: Meaningfully grouping individuals with tinnitus who share a common characteristics (ie, subgrouping, phenotyping) may help tailor interventions to certain tinnitus subgroups and hence reduce outcome variability. The purpose of this study was to test if the presence of tinnitus subgroups are discernible based on hearing-related comorbidities, and to identify predictors of tinnitus severity for each subgroup identified. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional study was used. The study was nested within an online survey distributed worldwide to investigate tinnitus experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main outcome measure was the tinnitus Handicap Inventory- Screening Version. RESULTS: From the 3400 respondents, 2980 were eligible adults with tinnitus with an average age of 58 years (SD = 14.7) and 49% (n = 1457) being female. A three-cluster solution identified distinct subgroups, namely, those with tinnitus-only (n = 1306; 44%), those presenting with tinnitus, hyperacusis, hearing loss and/or misophonia (n = 795; 27%), and those with tinnitus and hearing loss (n = 879; 29%). Those with tinnitus and hyperacusis reported the highest tinnitus severity (M = 20.3; SD = 10.5) and those with tinnitus and no hearing loss had the lowest tinnitus severity (M = 15.7; SD = 10.4). Younger age and the presence of mental health problems predicted greater tinnitus severity for all groups (ß ≤ -0.1, P ≤ .016). CONCLUSION: Further exploration of these potential subtypes are needed in both further research and clinical practice by initially triaging tinnitus patients prior to their clinical appointments based on the presence of hearing-related comorbidities. Unique management pathways and interventions could be tailored for each tinnitus subgroup.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Communication and Healthcare Access for Adults With Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with hearing loss are at risk of negative impacts of the pandemic. Specific factors, such as hearing loss severity and location of residence, may disproportionately impact patients during the pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the relative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hearing loss patients, based on hearing device type and location of residence. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional questionnaire study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adults with hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data included sociodemographic data, communication challenges, pandemic preparedness, access to healthcare, and mental and emotional health. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients responded (27.8% response rate). Compared with hearing aid users, cochlear implant users reported more difficulty communicating with family/friends (53% versus 41%, p = 0.017), obtaining pandemic information (10% versus 3%, p = 0.002), and understanding live broadcasts (47% versus 17%, p = 0.001) during the pandemic. CI users were less likely than hearing aid users to seek general (52% versus 69%, p = 0.001) and hearing healthcare services (20% versus 34%, p = 0.002). Rural residents reported greater difficulty than urban residents communicating with friends/family (53% versus 39%, p = 0.001), obtaining food/supplies (41% versus 20%, p = 0.004), understanding live broadcasts (31% versus 20%, p = 0.001) during the pandemic. Compared with urban residents, rural residents reported greater difficulty accessing general (57% versus 42%, p = 0.004) and hearing healthcare (49% versus 34%, p = 0.043). Rural residents reported poorer mental/emotional health than urban residents. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with hearing loss, cochlear implant users and rural residents experience greater challenges in communication, pandemic preparedness, and access to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accompaniment to healthcare visits: the impact of sensory impairment.

BACKGROUND: Millions of older adults in the United States experience hearing, vision, and dual sensory impairment (concurring hearing and vision impairment) yet little research exists on their needs in interactions with the healthcare system. This piece aims to determine the use of accompaniment in healthcare interactions by persons with sensory impairment. METHODS: These cross-sectional analyses included data from the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey and survey weighting provided by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Adjusted odds of reporting accompaniment to healthcare visits and given reasons for accompaniment among United States Medicare beneficiaries with self-reported sensory impairment (hearing, vision, and dual sensory impairment) were examined. RESULTS: After excluding observations with missing data, 10,748 Medicare beneficiaries remained representing a 46 million total weighted nationally representative sample, of which 88.9% reported no sensory impairment, 5.52% reported hearing impairment, 3.56% reported vision impairment, and 0.93% reported dual sensory impairment. Those with vision impairment and dual sensory impairment had 2.139 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.605-2.850) and 2.703 (CI = 1.549-4.718) times the odds of reporting accompaniment to healthcare visits relative to those without sensory impairment. A secondary analysis suggests communication needs as the primary reason for accompaniment among persons with hearing loss, while those with vision impairment were more likely to indicate transportation needs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare accompaniment is common for persons with sensory loss and healthcare systems should consider accommodations for and leveraging accompaniment to improve healthcare for persons with sensory impairments. In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, as hospitals limit visitors to reduce the spread of infection, arrangements should be made to ensure that the communication and transportation needs of those with sensory impairment are not neglected.