Charity T Lewis, Yuri Jang, Joanne Elayoubi, Victoria A Sanchez, Michelle L Arnold, Julia Toman, William E Haley
{"title":"听力障碍主观评分与客观评估差异的种族差异。","authors":"Charity T Lewis, Yuri Jang, Joanne Elayoubi, Victoria A Sanchez, Michelle L Arnold, Julia Toman, William E Haley","doi":"10.1093/geront/gnaf029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To better understand racial/ethnic disparities in hearing aid use, we examined racial differences in discrepancies between subjective hearing ratings and objective hearing tests as a potential source of this disparity.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional assessment was conducted using the data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Our analytic sample included 2,568 participants aged 50 and older: 1,814 non-Hispanic White Americans and 754 non-Hispanic Black Americans. Discordant groups were identified based on self-ratings of hearing abilities (positive vs negative) and objective hearing test results (normal vs hearing loss).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of HRS data revealed that approximately 73% of participants with objectively measured hearing loss reported positive hearing ratings. False positive hearing rates were found to be 80% among Black older adults and 70% among their White counterparts. Odds for false positive hearing ratings were significantly greater for Black older adults, men, those with less than a high school education, more health conditions and depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Racial differences were maintained after adjustment for these covariates.</p><p><strong>Discussion and implications: </strong>While cost of hearing aids has been a predominant explanation of low hearing aid use in Black Americans, false positive perceptions of hearing abilities may also play a significant role as a psychosocial mechanism. Future studies examining racial/ethnic differences in possible psychosocial mechanisms for discrepancies between objective and subjective hearing could guide the development and evaluation of culturally appropriate educational interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51347,"journal":{"name":"Gerontologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Racial Differences in Discrepancies Between Subjective Ratings and Objective Assessments of Hearing Impairment.\",\"authors\":\"Charity T Lewis, Yuri Jang, Joanne Elayoubi, Victoria A Sanchez, Michelle L Arnold, Julia Toman, William E Haley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/geront/gnaf029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To better understand racial/ethnic disparities in hearing aid use, we examined racial differences in discrepancies between subjective hearing ratings and objective hearing tests as a potential source of this disparity.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional assessment was conducted using the data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Our analytic sample included 2,568 participants aged 50 and older: 1,814 non-Hispanic White Americans and 754 non-Hispanic Black Americans. Discordant groups were identified based on self-ratings of hearing abilities (positive vs negative) and objective hearing test results (normal vs hearing loss).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of HRS data revealed that approximately 73% of participants with objectively measured hearing loss reported positive hearing ratings. False positive hearing rates were found to be 80% among Black older adults and 70% among their White counterparts. Odds for false positive hearing ratings were significantly greater for Black older adults, men, those with less than a high school education, more health conditions and depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Racial differences were maintained after adjustment for these covariates.</p><p><strong>Discussion and implications: </strong>While cost of hearing aids has been a predominant explanation of low hearing aid use in Black Americans, false positive perceptions of hearing abilities may also play a significant role as a psychosocial mechanism. Future studies examining racial/ethnic differences in possible psychosocial mechanisms for discrepancies between objective and subjective hearing could guide the development and evaluation of culturally appropriate educational interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gerontologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gerontologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaf029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaf029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Racial Differences in Discrepancies Between Subjective Ratings and Objective Assessments of Hearing Impairment.
Background and objectives: To better understand racial/ethnic disparities in hearing aid use, we examined racial differences in discrepancies between subjective hearing ratings and objective hearing tests as a potential source of this disparity.
Research design and methods: A cross-sectional assessment was conducted using the data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Our analytic sample included 2,568 participants aged 50 and older: 1,814 non-Hispanic White Americans and 754 non-Hispanic Black Americans. Discordant groups were identified based on self-ratings of hearing abilities (positive vs negative) and objective hearing test results (normal vs hearing loss).
Results: Analysis of HRS data revealed that approximately 73% of participants with objectively measured hearing loss reported positive hearing ratings. False positive hearing rates were found to be 80% among Black older adults and 70% among their White counterparts. Odds for false positive hearing ratings were significantly greater for Black older adults, men, those with less than a high school education, more health conditions and depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Racial differences were maintained after adjustment for these covariates.
Discussion and implications: While cost of hearing aids has been a predominant explanation of low hearing aid use in Black Americans, false positive perceptions of hearing abilities may also play a significant role as a psychosocial mechanism. Future studies examining racial/ethnic differences in possible psychosocial mechanisms for discrepancies between objective and subjective hearing could guide the development and evaluation of culturally appropriate educational interventions.
期刊介绍:
The Gerontologist, published since 1961, is a bimonthly journal of The Gerontological Society of America that provides a multidisciplinary perspective on human aging by publishing research and analysis on applied social issues. It informs the broad community of disciplines and professions involved in understanding the aging process and providing care to older people. Articles should include a conceptual framework and testable hypotheses. Implications for policy or practice should be highlighted. The Gerontologist publishes quantitative and qualitative research and encourages manuscript submissions of various types including: research articles, intervention research, review articles, measurement articles, forums, and brief reports. Book and media reviews, International Spotlights, and award-winning lectures are commissioned by the editors.