Acta Scientific Medical Sciences (ASMS)(ISSN: 2582-0931)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 12

Comparison of Audiometric Findings with Internet-based Hearing Screening Tests and the Relationship with Other Associated Factors in Adults

Chan Nyein1, Sherly Deborah1, Dhanalekshmi Unnikrishnan Meenakshi2 and Usha Kumari1*

1Unit of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, AIMST University, Kedah, Malaysia
2College of Pharmacy, National University of Science and Technology, Oman

*Corresponding Author: Usha Kumari, Unit of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, AIMST University, Kedah, Malaysia.

Received: November 02, 2020; Published: November 27, 2020

×

Abstract

  Hearing loss is one of the most challenging problems confronting medicine since it may affect the personality so adversely that it can lower someone’s quality of life. The aim of the study is to establish the validity of internet based hearing test. The hearing status of adults was evaluated by comparing audiometric findings and internet-based hearing screening test along with questionnaires to assess the potential risk factors associated with hearing loss. This cross-sectional study included 256 participants (18 to 40 years of both genders) by simple random sampling method, of which 245 had completed all the procedures. The study was carried out by using Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA), two internet-based speech-in-noise tests: internet test 1 (HearCom Digit Triplet Test offered by MED-EL) and internet test 2 (Speech in Noise Test by National Health Service) and survey questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi-Square test was used to analyze the data. All presentations and data evaluations were carried out by using SPSS version 21.0. The prevalence of hearing loss was 26.1% with PTA; 5.3% with internet test 1 and 47.3% with internet test 2. Among two internet-based hearing screening tests, internet test 1 is significantly correlated with PTA averages (p <0.05, 2-tailed) and the correlation coefficients showed weak association between the different tests. The study showed a significant correlation between audiograms and internet-based hearing tests and significant differences with associated factors as evaluated by using an extensive questionnaire. This study suggests that internet-based hearing test is feasible to screen for hearing status online and the data are of great value in applications and for advanced studies. Though an internet-based hearing test cannot replace a clinical pure-tone audiogram, it is a feasible screening tool for hearing ability in a large-scale population.

Keywords: Internet Based Hearing Test; Audiometry; Hearing Loss; Noise; Pure Tone; Speech

×

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO global estimates on prevalence of hearing loss (2012).
  2. Chadha S., et al. “Global hearing health: future directions”. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 3 (2018): 146.
  3. Ismail AF., et al. “Noise-induced hearing loss among quarry workers in a north-eastern state of Malaysia: a study on knowledge, attitude and practice”. Oman Medical Journal5 (2013): 331.
  4. Rashid MS and Dreschler WA. “Accuracy of an internet-based speech-in-noise hearing screening test for high-frequency hearing loss: incorporating automatic conditional rescreening”. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health7 (2018): 877-885.
  5. Sulaiman AH., et al. “Evaluation of early hearing damage in personal listening device users using extended high-frequency audiometry and otoacoustic emissions”. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology6 (2014): 1463-1470.
  6. De Wet Swanepoel KC., et al. “Mobile applications to detect hearing impairment: opportunities and challenges”. Bulletin of the World Health Organization10 (2019): 717.
  7. Chu YC., et al. “A Mobile Phone–Based Approach for Hearing Screening of School-Age Children: Cross-Sectional Validation Study”. JMIR mHealth and uHealth4 (2019): e12033.
  8. Daud MK., et al. “The effect of mild hearing loss on academic performance in primary school children”. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology1 (2010): 67-70.
  9. Widén SO and Erlandsson SI. “The influence of socio-economic status on adolescent attitude to social noise and hearing protection”. Noise and health25 (2004): 59.
  10. Mathers C., et al. “Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000”. Global burden of Disease4 (2000): 1-30.
  11. Olusanya BO., et al. “Hearing loss grades and the International classification of functioning, disability and health”. World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization10 (2019): 725-728.
  12. Widen SE., et al. “Hearing, use of hearing protection, and attitudes towards noise among young American adults”. International Journal of Audiology 8 (2009): 537-545.
  13. Niskar AS., et al. “Prevalence of hearing loss among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey”. JAMA14 (1998): 1071-1075.
  14. Le Prell CG., et al. “Evidence of hearing loss in a ‘normally-hearing’college-student population”. International Journal of Audiology1 (2011): S21-31.
  15. Rosdina AK., et al. “Self-reported hearing loss among elderly Malaysians”. Malaysian family physician: The Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia2 (2010): 91.
  16. Stenfelt S., et al. “e-Health technologies for adult hearing screening”. Audiology Research1 (2011): 25-28.
  17. McPherson B., et al. “Hearing screening for school children: comparison of low‐cost, computer‐based and conventional audiometry”. Child: Care, Health and Development3 (2010): 323-331.
  18. Bexelius C., et al. “Evaluation of an internet-based hearing test- comparison with established methods for detection of hearing loss”. Journal of Medical Internet Research4 (2008): e32.
  19. Leensen MC., et al. “Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 1: Test evaluation for noise-induced hearing loss identification”. International Journal of Audiology11 (2011): 823-834.
  20. Leensen MC., et al. “Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, part 2: improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss”. International Journal of Audiology11 (2011): 835-848.
  21. Plomp R and Mimpen AM. “Speech‐reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America5 (1979): 1333-1342.
  22. Smits C., et al. “Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone”. International Journal of Audiology1 (2004): 15-28.
  23. Rosenhall U., et al. “Correlations between presbyacusis and extrinsic noxious factors”. Audiology 4 (1993): 234-243.
  24. Aran JM., et al. “Effects of exposure of the ear to GSM microwaves: in vivo and in vitro experimental studies”. International Journal of Audiology9 (2004): 545-554.
  25. Oysu C., et al. “Effects of the acute exposure to the electromagnetic field of mobile phones on human auditory brainstem responses”. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head and Neck10 (2005): 839-843.
  26. Sievert U., et al. “Can mobile phone emissions affect auditory functions of cochlea or brain stem?” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery3 (2005): 451-455.
  27. Oktay MF and Dasdag S. “Effects of intensive and moderate cellular phone use on hearing function”. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine1 (2006): 13-21.
  28. Zocoli AM., et al. “Brazilian young adults and noise: attitudes, habits, and audiological characteristics”. International Journal of Audiology10 (2009): 692-699.
  29. Widén SE., et al. “Reported hearing protection use in young adults from Sweden and the USA: Effects of attitude and gender: Reportes de uso de protección auditiva en jóvenes adultos en Suecia y en los EUA: Efectos de actitud y de género”. International Journal of Audiology5 (2006): 273-280.
  30. Zhu X., et al. “Chinese-adapted youth attitude to noise scale: Evaluation of validity and reliability”. Noise and Health 71 (2014): 218.
  31. Gilles A., et al. “Epidemiology of noise-induced tinnitus and the attitudes and beliefs towards noise and hearing protection in adolescents”. PloS One 7 (2013): 24-29.
  32. Degeest S., et al. “The test–retest reliability of questionnaires regarding attitudes and beliefs toward noise, hearing loss, and hearing protector devices in young adults”. Noise and Health93 (2018): 31.

 

×

Citation

Citation: Usha Kumari., et al. “Comparison of Audiometric Findings with Internet-based Hearing Screening Tests and the Relationship with Other Associated Factors in Adults". Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 4.12 (2020): 103-113.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.111

Indexed In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is October 20, 2021.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US