听力障碍主观评分与客观评估差异的种族差异。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY Gerontologist Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI:10.1093/geront/gnaf029
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:为了更好地了解助听器使用中的种族差异,我们研究了主观听力评分和客观听力测试之间差异的种族差异,作为这种差异的潜在来源。研究设计和方法:采用健康与退休研究(HRS)的数据进行横断面评估。我们的分析样本包括2568名年龄在50岁及以上的参与者:1814名非西班牙裔美国白人和754名非西班牙裔美国黑人。根据听力能力的自我评分(阳性与阴性)和客观听力测试结果(正常与听力损失)来确定不和谐组。结果:对HRS数据的分析显示,大约73%客观测量听力损失的参与者报告了积极的听力评分。假阳性听力率在黑人老年人中为80%,在白人老年人中为70%。黑人老年人、男性、受教育程度低于高中、健康状况和抑郁症状较多、目前吸烟的人出现假阳性听力评分的几率明显更高。在调整这些协变量后,种族差异仍然存在。讨论和意义:虽然助听器的成本一直是美国黑人助听器使用率低的主要原因,但对听力能力的错误正面认知也可能作为一种社会心理机制发挥重要作用。未来关于种族/民族差异在客观和主观听力差异的可能社会心理机制方面的研究可以指导文化上适当的教育干预措施的发展和评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gerontologist
Gerontologist GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
8.80%
发文量
171
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.
期刊最新文献
Caregiver Speaks: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Storytelling Intervention for Hospice Family Caregivers of Persons with Dementia. Assessing the feasibility of linking Section G and Section GG measures of function in skilled nursing facilities. "Just Put the Heart into It and Go with the Flow": Family Preparedness for a Good End-of-Life for People with Dementia from Perspectives of Active Family Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals in Vietnam. Assessing progress in U.S. Age-Friendly communities: Are initiatives making a difference? Feasibility of the Mindfulness Self-Compassionate Care (MASC) Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial to address Dementia Caregiver Stress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1