4.5 Article

Hearing and Quality of Life Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbw045

Keywords

Aging; Cohort; Hearing; Life space; Quality of life

Funding

  1. European Research Area in Ageing (ERA-AGE2)
  2. Academy of Finland [263729, 285747]
  3. Future of Living and Housing program (ASU-LIVE) [255403]
  4. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture
  5. Academy of Finland (AKA) [263729, 263729] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hearing loss is a common health concern in older people, and the prevalence of hearing loss increases with aging. Poor hearing may cause difficulties in everyday life situations and reduce quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to assess the associations between different domains of QoL (physical, psychological, social, and environmental), perceived hearing difficulties in various everyday situations, and audiometrically measured hearing level among community-dwelling older adults. Cross-sectional analysis of 76- to 91-year-old community-dwelling adults. Data on QoL (WHO Quality of Life Assessment short version) and perceived hearing difficulties were gathered via postal questionnaires (n = 706) and screening pure-tone audiometry was performed at the participants' homes for a random subsample (n = 161). Data were analyzed with linear regression models. Factor analysis on the perceived hearing difficulties questionnaire identified three dimensions: speech hearing, socioemotional effects, and spatial hearing. All the perceived hearing difficulty factors, but not the pure-tone audiometry results, were significantly associated with poorer values in all the QoL domains and the total QoL score. Perceived hearing difficulties in various everyday life situations are more strongly associated with older adults' QoL than audiometrically assessed hearing impairment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available