Hearing Loss Prevalence, Years Lived With Disability, and Hearing Aid Use in the United States From 1990 to 2019: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article describes key data sources and methods used to estimate hearing loss in the United States, in the Global Burden of Disease study. Then, trends in hearing loss are described for 2019, including temporal trends from 1990 to 2019, changing prevalence over age, severity patterns, and utilization of hearing aids.We utilized population-representative surveys from the United States to estimate hearing loss prevalence for the Global Burden of Disease study. A key input data source in modeled estimates are the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), years 1988 to 2010. We ran hierarchical severity-specific models to estimate hearing loss prevalence. We then scaled severity-specific models to sum to total hearing impairment prevalence, adjusted estimates for hearing aid coverage, and split estimates by etiology and tinnitus status. We computed years lived with disability (YLDs), which quantifies the amount of health loss associated with a condition depending on severity and creates a common metric to compare the burden of disparate diseases. This was done by multiplying the prevalence of severity-specific hearing loss by corresponding disability weights, with additional weighting for tinnitus comorbidity.An estimated 72.88 million (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 68.53 to 77.30) people in the United States had hearing loss in 2019, accounting for 22.2% (20.9 to 23.6) of the total population. Hearing loss was responsible for 2.24 million (1.56 to 3.11) YLDs (3.6% (2.8 to 4.7) of total US YLDs). Age-standardized prevalence was higher in males (17.7% [16.7 to 18.8]) compared with females (11.9%, [11.2 to 12.5]). While most cases of hearing loss were mild (64.3%, 95% UI 61.0 to 67.6), disability was concentrated in cases that were moderate or more severe. The all-age prevalence of hearing loss in the United States was 28.1% (25.7 to 30.8) higher in 2019 than in 1990, despite stable age-standardized prevalence. An estimated 9.7% (8.6 to 11.0) of individuals with mild to profound hearing loss utilized a hearing aid, while 32.5% (31.9 to 33.2) of individuals with hearing loss experienced tinnitus. Occupational noise exposure was responsible for 11.2% (10.2 to 12.4) of hearing loss YLDs.Results indicate large burden of hearing loss in the United States, with an estimated 1 in 5 people experiencing this condition. While many cases of hearing loss in the United States were mild, growing prevalence, low usage of hearing aids, and aging populations indicate the rising impact of this condition in future years and the increasing importance of domestic access to hearing healthcare services. Large-scale audiometric surveys such as NHANES are needed to regularly assess hearing loss burden and access to healthcare, improving our understanding of who is impacted by hearing loss and what groups are most amenable to intervention.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».