Screening and Recognition of Cognitive Impairment in Older People Visiting Hearing Aid Dispensers in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine how prevalent suspected cognitive impairment is in older people visiting hearing aid dispensers, and to assess whether hearing aid dispensers' judgment on cognition was in accordance with the outcome of a cognitive screening. DESIGN: This observational study was conducted between April and May 2022. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four private hearing aid retail stores in the Netherlands, where cognitive impairment was screened in people aged ≥60 years. METHODS: The Mini-Cog was used for cognitive screening. In addition, hearing aid dispensers were asked to provide their professional judgment if they suspected cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Of the total 239 older individuals screened, 133 were men [56%, mean age: 79 years (SD 8.6)], and 51 (21.3%) had abnormal outcomes on the Mini-Cog test. The recognition of possible cognitive impairment by the hearing aid dispensers compared to the outcome of the Mini-Cog resulted in correct predictions for 183 of the 239 individuals. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Cognitive screening in hearing-impaired older adults who visit a hearing aid dispenser suggests that cognitive impairment might be present in approximately 1 in 5 individuals. Hearing aid dispensers' response to the presence of a cognitive impairment was in 2 of 3 in accordance with an abnormal outcome on cognitive screening. To improve hearing care for people with cognitive impairment, it might be important to enhance hearing care professionals' recognition of cognitive impairment in older individuals.

Do runners who suffer injuries have higher vertical ground reaction forces than those who remain injury-free? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) parameters have been implicated as a cause of several running-related injuries. However, no systematic review has examined this relationship. AIM: We systematically reviewed evidence for a relation between VGRF parameters and specific running-related injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE databases were searched. Two independent assessors screened the articles and rated the methodological quality. The 3 key VGRF parameters we measured were vertical loading rate, impact/passive peak (Fz1) and propulsive/active peak (Fz2). Standardised mean differences of these parameters were calculated using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed using injury type, study type and methodological quality as factors. RESULTS: The search yielded 2016 citations and 18 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The loading rate was higher in studies that included patients with a history of stress fractures and patients with all injury types, both compared with controls. Only studies that included patients with a history of symptoms at the time of kinetic data collection showed higher loading rates overall in cases than in controls. There were no differences between injured subjects and controls for the active and passive peaks of the VGRF. SUMMARY: The loading rate is higher in respondents with a history of stress fractures than in respondents without running injuries. Owing to the absence of prospective studies on other injury types, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions regarding their relation with loading rate.