Search

Importance: Although the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and racial or ethnic minority groups in NIH-funded research in 1993, little is known regarding the representation of women and racial or ethnic minority groups in trials that investigate hearing loss management., Objective: To assess sex and racial/ethnic representation in US-based clinical trials of hearing loss management in an adult population., Data Sources: Pertinent studies were identified using search strategies in PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov., Study Selection: Our search strategy yielded 6196 studies. We included prospective studies that were written in English, performed in the US, and evaluated hearing loss management in adults, including amplification devices, such as hearing aids or assistive listening devices, cochlear implants, aural rehabilitation, and therapeutics. Given its prevalence, only studies that addressed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 125 studies were extracted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses diagram for systematic reviews was used for abstracting data. The guidelines were applied using independent extraction by multiple observers., Results: Among 125 clinical studies performed from January 1990 to July 2020 regarding hearing loss management, only 16 (12.8%) reported race/ethnicity, and 88 (70.4%) reported sex. Of the 16 studies that reported race/ethnicity, only 5 included more than 30% non-White representation. Among the 88 articles that reported sex, 44 (35.2%) reported more than 45% female representation. While the mean number of participants included in the observed trials was 80 (range, 7-644), the median number of participants from racial or ethnic minority groups in studies that reported race/ethnicity was 9 (range, 1-77), and a median of 12 female participants were included in studies with a numerical breakdown by sex. A mean of 41% (range, 1.55%-77.5%) of participants were female among studies that reported sex, and a mean of 30% (range, 1.96%-100%) of participants were from racial or ethnic minority groups among the 16 studies that reported race/ethnicity. Reporting of race/ethnicity varied substantially by funding source and journal type, while reporting by sex differed only by journal type., Conclusions and Relevance: Studies investigating hearing loss management do not adequately reflect the US population. A closer examination of the inclusion of diverse adults in clinical research associated with hearing health may work to ameliorate disparities and contribute to the development of tailored interventions that address the needs of an increasingly diverse US population.

Purpose: Teleaudiology helps connect patients in rural and underresourced areas to hearing health care providers, minimizing the barrier of geography (Swanepoel et al., 2010). In the United States, teleaudiology is at the initial stages of implementation (Bush, Thompson, Irungu, & Ayugi, 2016). Telehealth researchers recommend conducting a comprehensive planning assessment to optimize implementation and adoption (AlDossary, Martin-Khan, Bradford, Armfield, & Smith, 2017; Alverson et al., 2008; Krupinski, 2015). A geographic analysis of the hearing aid dispensing workforce served as the initial stage of a teleaudiology planning assessment in Arizona., Method: The analysis used publically available data sets from the U.S. Census, Arizona Department of Health Services, and the U.S. Veterans Administration. Geographic information system tools were used to analyze and visually represent population, potential teleaudiology site data, and hearing aid dispensing workforce (defined as audiologists and hearing instrument specialists licensed to dispense hearing aids in Arizona). ArcGIS was used to generate road networks and travel distance estimations., Results: The number of audiologists per county ranged from 0 to 216 (average 22.1). Six out of Arizona's 15 counties lacked a single audiologist, and 2 counties lacked a hearing instrument specialist. Potential expansion sites for teleaudiology were located in areas of the state that lacked practice locations for hearing aid services., Conclusions: There are geographic areas of Arizona that lack licensed hearing aid locations yet are populated by individuals who may need services. Resource availability data inform teleaudiology program expansion. Future research will include data from providers and community members on their perceived needs for services.

Objective: Hearing impairment is highly prevalent, but little is known about hearing health care among older minority adults., Method: We analyzed nationally representative, cross-sectional data from 1,544 older adults ≥ 70 years with audiometry and hearing care data from the 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys., Results: After adjusting for age and speech frequency pure tone average, Blacks (odds ratio [OR] = 1.68, vs. Whites) and those with greater education (OR = 1.63, ≥ college vs. < high school) were more likely to report recent hearing testing, while White older adults and those with greater socioeconomic status were more likely to report regular hearing aid use (all ps < .05). Based on a multivariate analysis, Blacks were not more likely than Whites to use hearing aids despite being more likely to have had recent hearing testing., Discussion: Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities exist in hearing health care and represent critical areas for research and intervention., (© The Author(s) 2015.)