Self Servis İşitme Taraması Cihazı ile Yapılan İşitme Taraması Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 22 - 27, 01.01.2022

Banu Müjdeci Şule Kaya , Meltem Tulğar Mustafa Karabulut Kürşad Karakoç Banu Baş

https://doi.org/10.53394/akd.1037422

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmada üniversite kampüsünde yapılan yetişkin işitme taraması sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi planlandı.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: XXXXXXXX Üniversitesi’nde 611 katılımcıya (%51’i erkek %49’u kadın; yaş ortalaması 23,33±6,68) self-servis işitme tarama cihazı ile işitme taraması yapıldı. Cinsiyete, yaşa ve statüye göre işitme taraması sonuçları analiz edildi.
Bulgular: İşitme taramasına katılan 311’i (%51) erkek 300’ü (%49) kadın toplam 611 katılımcının, 9’u (%13) personel, 532’si (%87) öğrenciydi. Yaş ortalamaları açısından cinsiyetler arasında anlamlı fark elde edilmedi (p>0,05). Hem sağ hem de sol kulak işitme eşikleri açısından cinsiyetler arasında hiçbir frekansta anlamlı fark elde edilmedi (p>0,05). Personel ve öğrenciler arasında her iki kulakta da saf ses ortalaması açısından anlamlı fark saptandı (p<0,05). Taramaya katılan toplam 611 kişinin 8’sinde (%1,3) tek taraflı, 3’ünde (%0,5) bilateral işitme kaybı saptandı.
Sonuç: Çalışmada, üniversite kampüsünde işitme eşikleri yüksek olan bireyler belirlendi ve işitme kaybına farkındalık oluşturuldu. Yetişkin işitme taraması çalışmaları yetişkinlerde kullanılacak standart işitme tarama yöntemlerinin belirlenmesine ve sonuçların değerlendirilmesine yönelik standart kriterlerin oluşturulmasına katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: İşitme taraması, Yetişkin, İşitme kaybı, İletişim

Keywords

İşitme taraması, Yetişkin, İşitme kaybı, İletişim

Evaluation of Hearing Screening Results with Self Service Hearing Screening Device

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Objective: In this study, it was planned to evaluate the results of adult hearing screening performed on the university campus.
Materials ad Methods: At XXXXXXXXX, 611 participants (51% male, 49% female; average age 23.33 ± 6.68) were screened for hearing with a self-service hearing screening device. Hearing screening results were analyzed according to gender, age and status.
Results: Participating in hearing screening of the 611 participants, 311 (51%) male, 300 (49%) female, 79 (13%) were staff, 532 (87%) were students. No significant difference was found between genders in terms of average age (p> 0.05). No significant difference was found between genders in terms of hearing thresholds of both right and left ears (p> 0.05). A significant difference was found between staff and students in terms of pure tone average in both ears (p <0.05). Unilateral hearing loss was found in 8 (1.3%) and bilateral hearing loss in 3 (0.5%) of the 611 people who participated in the screening.
Conclusion: In the study, individuals with high hearing thresholds on the university campus were identified and awareness of hearing loss was created. Adult hearing screening studies can contribute to the determination of standard hearing screening methods to be used in adults and to establish standard criteria for evaluating the results.
Key Words: Hearing screening, Adult, Hearing loss, Communication

Keywords

Hearing screening, Adult, Hearing loss, Communication

References

• 1- Yueh B, Shapiro N, MacLean CH, Shekelle, PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: scientific review. JAMA 2003; 289(15):1976-85.
• 2- Organization WH. Deafness and hearing impairment. Fact sheet No 300.[Internet]; 2014. Available from: http://www who int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/index html.
• 3- Becerril-Ramírez PB, González-Sánchez DF, Gómez-García A, Figueroa-Moreno R, Bravo-Escobar GA, de la Cruz M.A.G. Hearing loss screening tests for adults. Acta Otorrinolaringologica (English Edition) 2013; 64(3):184-90.
• 4- Thodi C, Parazzini M, Kramer SE, Davis A, Stenfelt S, Janssen T, Smith P, Stephens D, Pronk M, Anteunis TI, Schirkonyer V, Grandori F. Adult hearing screening: follow-up and outcomes1. Am J Audiol 2013; 22 (1): 183-185.
• 5- Morris A. An economic model of adult hearing screening. Audiol Res. 2011; 1(1): e16.
• 6- Vestergaard Knudsen L, Öberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE. Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: A review of the literature. Trends Amplif 2010; 14(3): 127-154.
• 7- Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BEK. Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Audiology 1998; 37(5): 295-301.
• 8-ASHA. Hearing screening [Internet]; 2020. Available from: https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589942721&section=Key_Issues.
• 9- Gopinath B, Hickson L, Schneider J, McMahon CM, Burlutsky G, Leeder SR, Mitchell P. Hearing-impaired adults are at increased risk of experiencing emotional distress and social engagement restrictions five years later. Age Ageing 2012; 41(5): 618-623.
• 10- Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 2003; 43(5): 661-8.
• 11- Agrawal Y, Platz EA, Niparko JK. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. Arch Int Med 2008; 168(14): 1522-1530.
• 12- Scudder SG, Culbertson DS, Waldron CM, Stewart J. Predictive validity and reliability of adult hearing screening techniques. JAAA 2003; 14(1): 9-19.
• 13- Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Smith W, Golding M, Newall P, Hartley D, Rubin G. Validation of self-reported hearing loss. The Blue Mountains hearing study. Int J Epidemiol 2001; 30(6): 1371-1378.
• 14- Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD. Methods in observational epidemiology: Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. NewYork: Oxford University, 1996.
• 15- Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Festen JM, Tobi H. The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiology 1996; 35(5): 277-287.
• 16- Lutman M, Robinson D. Quantification of hearing disability for medicolegal purposes based on self-rating. Br J Audiol 1992; 26(5): 297-306.
• 17- Rosen JK. Psychological and Social Aspects of the Evaluation of Acquired Hearing Impairment1. Audiology 1979; 18(3): 238-52.
• 18- Association AS-L-H. (1997). Guidelines for audiologic screening. [Internet]; 2014. Available from:file:///C:/Users/YBU_TOSHIBA/Downloads/Guidelines%20for%20Audiologic%20Screening%20(3).pdf
• 19- Thodi C, Parazzini M, Kramer S, Davis A, Stenfelt S, Janssen T, Stephens D, Smith P, Pronk M, Anteunis TI, Grandori F. Adult hearing screening: the Cyprus Pilot Program. Audiology Res 2011; 1(1): e18.
• 20- Khan KM, Bielko SL, Barnes PA, Evans SS, Main AL. Feasibility of a low-cost hearing screening in rural Indiana. BMC Public Health 2017; 17(1): 715.
• 21- Karlsmose B, Lauritzen T, Engberg M, Parving A. A randomised controlled trial of screening for adult hearing loss during preventive health checks. Br J Gen Prac 2001; 51(466); 351-5.
• 22- Tuz D, İkiz M, Parlak AK, Kılıç S, Sendesen E, Yiğit Ö, Sennaroğlu G. Erişkin İşitme Taraması Bulguları. TJAHR 2019; 2(2): 29-33.
• 23- Louw C, Swanepoel DW, Eikelboom RH, Myburgh HC. Smartphone-based hearing screening at primary health care clinics. Ear Hearing 2017; 38(2): e93-e100.
• 24- von Gablenz P, Holube I. Hearing threshold distribution and effect of screening in a population-based German sample. Int J Audiol 2016; 55(2): 110-25.