. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Jun 14;71(10):3163–3171. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18461

TABLE 3.

Comparison of logistic regression models for each exposure group and for each outcome (fall prevalence and fall risk).

	Any HA use Odds ratio (95% CI) (Referenced to No HA Use)	Consistent HA use Odds ratio (95% CI) (Referenced to No/Inconsistent HA Use)

Fall Prevalence
Unadjusted/crude model	0.50 (0.29–0.85) p=0.01	0.40 (0.24–0.68) p<0.001
^* Adjusted model	0.48 (0.26–0.90) p=0.02	0.35 (0.19–0.67) p<0.001
^† Stepwise model	0.51 (0.28–0.93) p=0.03	0.43 (0.24–0.77) p=0.005
Fall Risk
Unadjusted/crude model	0.42 (0.25–0.70) p<0.001	0.43 (0.26–0.71) p<0.001
^* Adjusted model	0.36 (0.19–0.66) p<0.001	0.32 (0.12–0.59) p<0.001
^‡ Stepwise model	0.41 (0.22–0.76) p<0.004	0.38 (0.21–0.69) p<0.001

Model adjusted for age, ARS, sex and hearing loss severity.

^†

Model adjusted for age, ARS, previous falls and hearing loss asymmetry.

^‡

Model adjusted for age, ARS, previous falls, dizziness and diabetes.

HA=hearing aid; ARS=Anticholinergic Risk Scale.