4.4 Article

Mild hearing impairment and psychotic experiences in a normal aging population

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 94, 期 1-3, 页码 180-186

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2007.04.006

关键词

hearing impairment; psychotic experiences; depressive feelings; general population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hearing impairment (HI) in the elderly may be a risk factor for psychosis, but associations between HI and psychotic disorder or psychotic experiences have been reported more consistently in younger than in older populations. The aims of this study were to replicate the positive association between hearing impairment and psychotic experiences and to clarify any differences between groups of young and old individuals in a non-clinical, normal aging general population sample. Methods: HI, assessed at baseline and at 3-year follow-up, and psychotic experiences, assessed at. 3-year follow-up, were analysed in a group of 848 individuals aged 33 to 89 years between 1999 and 2004. HI was determined on the basis of both self-report and audiometric examination. The psychoticism and paranoid ideation subscales from the SCL-90-R were used to assess level of psychotic experiences. Results: Self-reported hearing problems expressed as conversational HI (beta=0.080, 95% CI: 0.23, 7.90, p=0.038) and subjective HI (beta=0.087, 95%CI: 0.70, 10.30,p=0.025), but not audiometric objective HI, were associated with psychotic experiences. In those with hearing aids, associations with psychotic experiences were only present if accompanied by self-reported hearing problems that persisted in spite of the hearing aid. In addition, HI increased the risk for psychotic experiences specifically in younger rather than older individuals. Conclusions: Self-reported hearing problems rather than audiometric or remediated hearing loss may contribute to the development of psychotic experiences in younger rather than in older individuals. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据