ArticleThe Laryngoscope2024
Association Between Limited English Proficiency and Hearing Healthcare Use in the United States.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether limited English proficiency (LEP) is associated with likelihood of prior audiogram and hearing aid use among US adults with hearing loss.
methodsThis cross-sectional study of four merged National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles included 12,636 adults with subjective (self-reported) or objective (audiometric) hearing loss. Subjects were classified as LEP if they completed the NHANES survey in a language other than English, or with the help of an interpreter. Likelihood of audiogram among participants with subjective and objective hearing loss, and likelihood of hearing aid use among participants with objective hearing loss were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression.
resultsIndividuals with LEP were less likely to have undergone audiogram among subjects with subjective (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.77), and objective (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.74) hearing loss. The association persisted for those with subjective hearing loss (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.86), and objective hearing loss (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.89) after adjusting for relevant covariates. Individuals with LEP were less likely to use hearing aids (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.93). This association disappeared (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.04) after adjustment.
conclusionLEP is associated with lower utilization of hearing healthcare services. This may be due to the complex interplay of socioeconomic and language disparities, which may act as barriers to hearing healthcare utilization. Individuals with LEP should be prioritized when designing interventions to improve accessibility to hearing healthcare. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:5122-5130, 2024.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.