ArticleBMJ global health2025
Gender differences in self-reported hearing loss and hearing aid use: a cross-national comparison.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adolescent Hearing Loss in China and the United States: Trends, Socioeconomic Disparities, and Noise Exposure From GBD 1990-2023 and NHANES 2005-2020.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Hearing Intervention for Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment: The CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA neurology · 2026Article
- Prevalence and sex differences in moderate-to-severe hearing loss among older adults: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObjective measurements estimated that 1.57 billion people globally had hearing loss in 2019. However, where audiologists are sparse, self-reported measures have been suggested as alternatives to assess burden. Moreover, research suggests this number varies by gender, due to biological and social mechanisms. Further refining our knowledge of the global prevalence of hearing loss will provide better understanding of which groups are most affected and how to best allocate resources.
methodsUsing Gateway to Global Ageing data and the South African National Income Dynamics Study, we estimated the prevalence and men:women ratio of self-reported hearing loss and hearing aid use for 28 countries. Hearing loss was measured as having fair/poor hearing or reporting hearing aid use. We included 664 580 observations of individuals aged 50+ years.
resultsWe found that the four countries with the highest levels of hearing loss (China 65%, South Korea 39%, Mexico 33%, Brazil 31%) also had the lowest reported hearing aid use (as low as 1% in China). Though men were more likely than women to report hearing loss in nearly all countries, especially in regions with higher hearing aid use (USA, Northern/Western Europe), China, South Korea and South Africa reported no gender difference. As the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use increased with age, gender differences generally decreased.
conclusionInternational variation underscores the importance of country context in shaping perceived hearing and hearing aid use. Regions with high levels of hearing loss and low hearing aid use may be especially amenable to interventions.
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.