Prevalence of anxiety disorders and symptoms in people with hearing impairment: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anxiety disorders are common. Prevalence is likely to be raised in people with hearing impairment, who experience higher rates of associated risk factors. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first systematic review of the prevalence and correlates of anxiety in people with hearing impairment. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and references of included studies, using predetermined criteria to retrieve original research reporting prevalence of anxiety disorders or symptoms in adult, hearing impaired populations. We assessed risk of bias using the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We included 25 studies evaluating 17,135 people with hearing impairment. Community studies of higher quality reported a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder of 11.1% (one study) and point prevalences of 15.4-31.3% for clinically significant anxiety symptoms (five studies) in people who predominantly had acquired hearing impairment. Anxiety prevalence was higher in hearing impaired people in 8/10 studies with a comparator non-hearing impaired group. Anxiety symptoms decreased after surgical intervention for hearing in all studies investigating this. Correlates consistently associated with anxiety were tinnitus and hearing impairment severity. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of anxiety is higher among people with hearing impairment than the general population; our findings indicate that this excess morbidity may be related to the hearing impairment itself, as it was associated with the severity of impairment, and reduced after surgical treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the potential impact of hearing on mental health, and that where hearing ability can be improved, this may reduce anxiety. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088463.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".