Skip to main content
BMJ Open logoLink to BMJ Open
. 2019 May 1;9(4):e022440. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022440

Discrepancies between self-reported hearing difficulty and hearing loss diagnosed by audiometry: prevalence and associated factors in a national survey

Ji Eun Choi 1,#, Il Joon Moon 2,#, Sun-Young Baek 3, Seon Woo Kim 3, Yang-Sun Cho 2
PMCID: PMC6501946  PMID: 31048419

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate discrepancies prevalent between self-reported hearing difficulty (SHD) and audiometrically measured hearing loss (AHL) and factors associated with such discrepancies.

Design

Nationwide cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Data from 2010 to 2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Participants

We included 14 345 participants aged ≥19 years who had normal tympanic membranes (mean age of 49 years).

Measures

Self-reported hearing was assessed by asking participants whether they had difficulty in hearing. AHL was defined as >25 dB of mean hearing thresholds measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in better ear. Underestimated hearing impairment (HI) was defined as having AHL without SHD. Likewise, overestimated HI was defined as having SHD without AHL. Prevalence of underestimated and overestimated HIs was determined. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to examine factors associated with such discrepancies compared with concordant HL.

Results

Among 14 345 participants, 1876 (13.1%) had underestimated HI while 733 (5.1%) had overestimated HI. Multivariable models revealed that participants who had discrepancies between SHD and AHL were less likely to have older age (OR: 0.979, 95% CI: 0.967 to 0.991 for the underestimated HI, OR: 0.905, 95% CI: 0.890 to 0.921 for the overestimated HI) and tinnitus (OR: 0.425, 95% CI: 0.344 to 0.525 for the underestimated HI and OR 0.523, 95% CI: 0.391 to 0.699 for the overestimated HI) compared with those who had concordant HI. Exposure to occupational noise (OR: 0.566, 95% CI: 0.423 to 0.758) was associated with underestimated HI, and medical history of hypertension (OR: 1.501, 95% CI: 1.061 to 2.123) and depression (OR: 1.771, 95% CI: 1.041 to 3.016) was associated with overestimated HI.

Conclusion

Age, tinnitus, occupational noise exposure, hypertension and depression should be incorporated into evaluation of hearing loss in clinical practice.

Keywords: Self-reported hearing difficulty, prevalence, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, audiometry


Strengths and limitations of this study.

  • This study was based on a nationwide large-scale cross-sectional survey.

  • We analysed only participants who had normal tympanic membranes to exclude participants who have undergone a previous hearing evaluation.

  • We used definition of hearing loss as mean hearing threshold of >25 dB HL measured at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in the better ear in accordance with the WHO definition (World Health Organization 2014).

  • Multivariable logistic analysis was performed using both auditory and non-auditory factors including personal, socioeconomic, psychological and health-related factors.

  • Because the survey did not assess the history of hearing evaluation for each participant, this might have influenced discrepancy between self-reported hearing and audiometry.

Introduction

Hearing is usually assessed in the clinic by using pure-tone audiometry to measure the smallest detectable level of pure tone at several frequencies, typically in the range of 0.5–8 kHz. Sometimes, the use of self-reported hearing measurements is attractive in occupational health screening programmes or a large-scale epidemiologic survey due to the costs and time constraints of audiometric measurements. However, discrepancies between self-reported hearing and pure-tone thresholds have been reported in multiple studies.1–11 Therefore, it is necessary to understand prevalence of this discrepancy and various factors affecting the accuracy of self-reported hearing when using as a surrogate measurement of audiometry.

Previous studies have reported that accuracy of self-reported hearing difficulty (SHD) is associated with auditory factors (eg, degree of hearing loss, frequencies of hearing loss and middle ear infection)5–7 9 10 12 13 as well as demographic factors.3 5 7 14 15 However, these studies have mainly focused on elderly populations3 8 11 14 or SHD with normal audiogram.1 7 Few studies have focused on the non-auditory factors (socioeconomic factors, psychological factors, healthcare utilisation or other personal information) that might influence the self-reported hearing assessment in a large population of various ages. Although a study has recently reported discrepancy between self-reported hearing and audiometry,5 this study included participants with abnormal tympanic membrane (TM) findings such as perforation, cholesteatoma or effusion. Because individuals who have abnormal TM are more likely to have undergone a previous hearing evaluation, this might have influenced self-reported hearing and also discrepancy from audiometry.

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of discrepancy between SHD and audiometrically measured hearing loss (AHL) in terms of overestimation or underestimation in a population with normal TMs based on national survey data. We also comprehensively investigated whether non-auditory metrics such as socioeconomic factors, psychological factors, medical history, healthcare utilisation and other personal information could affect the accuracy of SHD and types of discrepancy.

Methods

Data source

This study used data from the fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). The KNHANES is a nationwide cross-sectional survey conducted annually by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) to investigate health and nutritional status of a representative Korean population.16 Every year, about 10 000 individuals in 3840 households are selected from a panel to represent the population through a multistage clustered and stratified random sampling method based on National Census Data. A total of 576 survey areas were drawn from the population and housing census by considering the proportion of each subgroup. The participation rate of selected households was about 80%. The survey manuals and microdata of KNHANES are available in public through the official website of KNHANES (http://knhanes.cdc.go.kr).

Study population

From 2010 to 2012, a total of 23 621 individuals (8313 in 2010, 7887 in 2011 and 7421 in 2012) agreed to participate in health surveys. Among participants >19 years of age, we included participants who completed hearing questionnaire, audiometric measurement and examination of TMs. As individuals with abnormal TM are more likely to have correct information on their hearing status from the prior hearing tests, we excluded participants with abnormal TM, and whose information on outcome variables was missing.

Hearing questionnaire and audiometric measurement

Participants were first asked about their perceived HD. In detail, participants were asked to rate their difficulty in hearing with a survey question: ‘Which sentence best describes your hearing status (while not using hearing aids)?', and to choose an answer for the question: (1) ‘Don’t feel difficulty at all,’ (2) ‘A little bit difficult’, (3) ‘Very difficult’ and (4) ‘Can’t hear at all’. SHD was indicated when the response was (2), (3) or (4).

Pure tone air-conduction threshold was measured in a double-walled sound booth (CD-600, Sontek, Paju, South Korea) using an audiometer (SA-203, Entomed AB, Malmö, Sweden). A TDH39P Phone type headphone (10 Ohm) was used. Calibration of the audiometer was carried out annually according to the user’s manual. The ambient noise level measured inside the booth under maximal noisy conditions in the survey unit met the ISO 8253–1 standard. Otolaryngologists who had been trained to operate the audiometer provided instructions to participants and obtained audiometric data. Air conduction thresholds were measured at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 kHz in accordance with the American National Standards Institute standard.17

Hearing loss (HL) in this study was defined as the mean air conduction hearing thresholds >25 dB HL at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in the better ear. Discrepancy between self-reported hearing and audiometry was classified in terms of underestimated and overestimated hearing impairment (HI). Underestimation of HI was defined as having AHL without SHD. Likewise, overestimation of HI was defined as having SHD without AHL. Concordant HI was defined as having both AHL and SHD.

Otologic examination and questionnaires

An ear examination was conducted with a 4 mm 0°-angled rigid endoscope attached to a Charge-Coupled Device camera by trained otolaryngologists. Endoscopic examination was performed to identify abnormal TM findings such as perforation, cholesteatoma (including retraction pocket) and otitis media with effusion (including the presence of a ventilation tube). Trained otolaryngologists categorised both TMs into the following three groups: normal, abnormal and could not examine. Only participants with normal TMs on both sides were included in this study.

Participants were asked about their tinnitus experiences using the following question: ‘During the past year, did you ever hear a sound (buzzing, hissing, ringing, humming, roaring, machinery noise) originating in your ear?'. Examiners were instructed to record either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If a participant reported that they heard an odd or unusual noise at any time in past years, examiners recorded ‘yes’. Participants were also asked about their experience with occupational noise exposure. They were instructed to record either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for the question ’Have you ever worked more than 3 months in the place where you have to speak loudly to communicate with others because of noisy sound?’

Outcome variables

Age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, marital status, waist circumference (cm) and body mass index (kg/m2) of each participant were collected and categorised as personal factors in this study. Smoking status was divided into three groups: never smoked, past smoker and current smoker. The participants were asked to self-report to question ‘Do you smoke now?'. If the participant smoked in the past but did not smoke now, it was classified as a past smoker. Alcohol consumption was divided into two groups according to their drinking frequency during the last year: non-drinker and drinker. The question was ‘How often do you drink alcohol in the last year?'. The participants who had never drunk at all during the last year were classified as non-drinker, while others were classified as drinker.

A non-drinker was defined as a participant who had never drunk during the last year. Marital status was divided into two groups through the questionnaire: ever married and never married. The marital status question was ‘Have you been married?'. Ever married included participants married at the time of survey, separated, widowed or divorced.

To evaluate socioeconomic factors, monthly income, education level and employment status were assessed. Participants answered an open-ended question on income: ‘What is your average monthly income including salaries, property income, pension, government subsidies and allowance?'. Monthly income indicates equalised monthly household income and was calculated by dividing total family income by the square root of the number of household members. Monthly income was classified into quartiles to determine monthly income level: lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper. With regard to educational level, the participants were asked the level at which their education was completed, which was classified into four educational categories: completion of elementary school, middle school, high school and post-secondary school. Education level was re-divided into two groups: less than high school and high school or more. Employment status was divided into employed and unemployed groups. The participants answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question ’Have you ever worked more than 1 hour for the last week for income, or worked as unpaid family worker for over 18 hours? (The temporary leave status is also included if you have worked.)'

Quality of life was measured using Euro Qol-5D (EQ-5D) consisting of a health-status descriptive system (EQ-5D) and a visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). EQ-5D is a standard tool used to measure patient’s health status in the following five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.18 19 Each dimension has three grades of severity: no problem (score of 1), moderate problem (score of 2) or serious problem (score of 3). EQ-5D index is calculated from EQ-5D score by applying a formula that assigns weights to each grade in each dimension. This formula differs among nations because it is based on the value of EQ-5D of the population.20 KNHANES algorithm was used to calculate the EQ-5D index in the present study. The EQ-5D index ranged from 1 (best health) to 0 (equivalent to death) or −0.171 (worse than death). Next, participants described their own health status using a VAS ranging from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health) presented as EQ-VAS.

To evaluate psychological factors, self-reported health status and body shape perception were assessed. Self-reported health status was categorised into three answers: good, fair and poor. The question was ‘What do you usually think about your health?'. Participants were asked to report their body shape perception as ‘too thin’, ‘just right' or ‘too fat’. The question was ‘What do you think of your body weight status?'. Self-reported stress and depression levels were also assessed. Participants were asked about their stress level using the following question ‘How much do you feel stress in ordinary life?'. They were instructed to report one of the following responses to the question: ‘extremely stressed’, ‘quite stressed’, ‘a little bit stressed’ and ‘not stressed at all’. The responses were re-categorised into ‘low level (not stressed at all or a little bit stressed)’ or ‘high level (extremely or quite stressed)’. To assess the self-perceived level of depression, participants answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question ‘Have you felt sorrow or despair that has affected your daily life for more than 2 weeks continuously during the past year?’

To evaluate health-related factors, physical activity, the use of medical service and current disease were assessed. The intensity of the physical activity was categorised as vigorous, moderate and light. Examples of vigorous intensity physical activities were soccer, basketball, aerobics, running, fast cycling and fast swimming. Moderate physical activities included cycling at a regular pace, swimming at a regular pace, slow swimming, noncompetitive volley ball and doubles tennis. Walking slowly or at a moderate pace for the use of public transportation were included in the light physical activity. We used the guidelines suggested by Noh et al 21 to divide the participants into exercising and non-exercising groups based on the number of days and hours in which they took part in physical activity. The intensity of the physical activity was based on the physical activity recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. These activities were categorised as follows: those who perform vigorous-intensity activity for a minimum of 20 min at least 3 days each week; those who perform moderate-intensity physical activity for a minimum of 30 min at least 5 days each week and those who perform light-intensity activity for a minimum of 30 min for at least 5 days weekly. Individuals who did not exercise regularly were placed into the non-exercising group. Medical services evaluated restriction of medical service, health screening and medical history. The participants were asked to answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ about the restricted use of medical service. The question was ‘Have you ever been unable to go to the clinic (except for dentistry) during the past year?'. To assess the health screening status, the participants answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question ‘Have you ever had a health checkup for health during the last two years?' Participants were also asked about their current disease diagnosed by a medical doctor. They answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions about current disease. Among the various disease lists, histories of hearing-related diseases such as obesity, hypertension, myocardial infarction, angina, asthma, depression, renal failure and diabetes mellitus were selected as variables.22 23

According to the standard protocol, systolic blood pressure (BP) and diastolic BP were measured by trained nurses using a mercury sphygmomanometer (Baumanometer Desk model; Baum, Amherst, New York, USA) on the right arm of the subject while sitting after taking at least 5 min of rest. BP was measured three times and the second and third measurements were averaged. Blood and urine samples were collected in the morning after fasting for at least 8 hours. Fasting blood samples and spot urine samples were processed, refrigerated immediately, and transported in cold storage to a central laboratory (Neodin Medical Institute, Seoul, Korea). All samples were analysed within 24 hours after transportation. Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglyceride, haemoglobin, haematocrit, blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine levels were measured with a Hitachi Automatic Analyzer 7600 (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). Urine protein and glucose levels were measured using a dipstick in a spot urine sample.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed by taking account of weights from a complex sampling design according to the guideline for analysis of KNHANES data. The KCDC has published guideline for analysis through the official website of KNHANES (http://knhanes.cdc.go.kr). The survey design created a sample weight assigned to each sample individual through the following three steps so that the total sample would represent the population (on average) for 2010–2012 period: calculating the base weight of the inverse of the final probability an individual being selected, adjusting for non-response and post-stratification adjustment to match previous census population control totals. Weights in 2010, 2011, 2012 surveys were combined, and the average weight (sum of weight for each year/3) was calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS V.9.4 (SAS Institute).

Logistic regression or linear regression was used to evaluate factors associated with discrepancies between SHL and AHL. Variables found to have possible association in univariable analysis (p<0.20) were entered into the multivariable analysis model. Serologicaldata were not entered into the multivariable analysis model due to a significant number of missing data. In this study, the population group was classified into three categories: participants who had overestimated HI, underestimated HI and concordant HI. To evaluate factors associated with underestimated HI, we compared participants with underestimated HI and concordant HI. We also compared participants with overestimated HI and concordant HI to evaluate factors associated with overestimated HI. The p values were obtained two-sided. Bonferroni’s correction was applied to the p value and the corresponding CI due to multiple testing. Statistical significance was considered when adjusted p value was less than 0.05.

Patient and public involvement

Participants and the public were neither involved in designing the study or developing the research questions, nor were they involved in analysing or interpreting the findings. There are no plans for the study results to be disseminated directly to participants.

Results

Basic characteristics of study population

A total of 25 094 Korean citizens participated in the KNHANES from 2010 to 2012. Of them, 16 727 participants aged ≥19 years completed the hearing questionnaire and audiometric measurement. After excluding participants with abnormal TM and missing data, a total of 14 345 participants were ultimately eligible for this study. The mean ±SD age of the study population was 49.2±16.1 years (ranged from 19 to 97). The study population consisted of 42.5% males and 57.5% females.

Prevalence of discrepancies between self-reported hearing and audiometry

Of the 14 345 participants with normal TMs, 3001 (20.9%) participants had AHL and 1858 (13.0%) had SHD. Table 1 shows the percentage and prevalence of discrepancies between self-reported hearing and audiometry. Of the 3001 participants with AHL, 62.5% (n=1876) reported no SHD. On the other hand, 733 (39.5%) of 1858 participants with SHD had no AHL (mean audiometric thresholds ≤25 dB HL in the better ear). That is, the prevalence of underestimated and overestimated HI was 62.5% and 39.5%, respectively. The prevalence of discrepancies between self-reported hearing and audiometry was 18.2% (n=2.609).

Table 1.

Percentage and prevalence rates of discrepancy between self-reported hearing and audiometry

Questionnaire
Audiometry
Hearing difficulty No difficulty Total
Hearing loss 1125 (A) 1876 (B) 3001 (A+B)
Normal 733 (C) 10 611 (D) 11 344 (C+D)
Total 1858 (A+C) 12 487 (B+D) 14 345 (A+B+C+D)

Percentage of discrepancy (%)=18.2% [(B+C) / (A+B+C+D)].

Underestimation of hearing impairment=62.5% [B / (A+B)].

Overestimation of hearing impairment=39.5% [C / (A+C)].

Factors associated with underestimated hearing impairment

A total of 3001 participants who had bilateral HL (mean hearing thresholds >25 dB HL at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz) were analysed to evaluate factors associated with underestimated HI using linear and logistic regression analyses. Results are shown in table 2. In univariable analyses, age, alcohol consumption, education, employment status, quality of life, self-reported health status, depressive mood, restricted use of medical service, hospital visit, history of myocardial infarction, angina, asthma, tinnitus, occupational noise exposure, diastolic BP and blood urea nitrogen were significantly associated with underestimated HI. In multivariable analysis, participants who underestimated HI showed significantly decreased age (OR: 0.979, 95% CI: 0.967 to 0.991) compared with those who had both AHL and SHD. Also, participants who underestimated HI were less likely to have tinnitus (OR: 0.425, 95% CI: 0.344 to 0.525) or exposure to occupational noise (OR: 0.566, 95% CI: 0.423 to 0.758) compared with those who showed concordant HI.

Table 2.

Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors associated with underestimated hearing impairment

Variables Total population with AHL Underestimated HI* Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis
Weighted frequency Mean† or % Weighted frequency Prevalence (%)‡ OR 95% CI P value OR 95% CI P value
Personal factor
Age (years) 4 660 594 62.0† 3 023 386 64.9 0.977 0.968 to 0.986 <0.0001 0.979 0.967 to 0.991 0.001
Sex
 Male 2 594 824 55.7 1 702 933 65.6 1.078 0.897 to 1.295 0.425
 Female 2 065 770 44.3 1 320 453 63.9 Referent
Smoke
 Never 2 165 731 46.5 1 385 246 64.0 Referent
 Past smoker§ 1 369 414 29.4 883 557 64.5 1.025 0.804 to 1.306 1.000
 Current smoker§ 1 125 449 24.1 754 583 67.0 1.146 0.850 to 1.546 1.227
Drinking alcohol in past year
 Non-drinker 1 666 794 35.8 1 012 283 60.7 Referent
 Drinker 2 993 800 64.2 2 011 103 67.2 1.323 1.102 to 1.589 0.003 1.025 0.831 to 1.266 0.814
Marital status
 Ever married 4 518 752 97.0 2 917 820 64.6 0.626 0.289 to 1.360 0.236
 Never married 141 843 3.0 105 566 74.4 Referent
Waist circumference (cm) 4 660 594 84.0† 3 023 386 64.9 0.998 0.988 to 1.008 0.668
Body mass index (kg/m2) 4 660 594 24.0† 3 023 386 64.9 1.012 0.982 to 1.042 0.447
Socioeconomic factors
Income
 Lower 1 579 965 33.9 964 575 61.1 Referent
 Lower middle§ 1 296 182 27.8 833 271 64.3 1.148 0.853 to 1.547 0.800 0.806 0.585 to 1.111 0.324
 Upper middle§ 934 922 20.1 641 226 68.6 1.393 0.994 to 1.952 0.057 0.949 0.659 to 1.366 1.000
 Upper§ 849 526 18.2 584 315 68.8 1.406 0.999 to 1.978 0.052 0.963 0.651 to 1.427 1.000
Education
 Less than high school 2 883 779 61.9 1 789 349 62.0 Referent
 High school or more 1 776 815 38.1 1 234 038 69.5 1.391 1.134 to 1.704 0.002 1.087 0.853 to 1.386 0.498
Employment status
 Employed 2 566 437 55.1 1 730 554 67.4 1.283 1.066 to 1.545 0.009 0.966 0.777 to 1.202 0.757
 Unemployed 2 094 158 44.9 1 292 832 61.7 Referent
Quality of life
EQ-5D (%)
Physical activity (mobility)
 Normal 3 310 530 71.0 2 252 247 68.0 Referent
 Limited 1 350 065 29.0 771 140 57.1 0.626 0.516 to 0.759 <0.0001
Physical activity (self-care)
 Normal 4 249 662 91.2 2 790 703 65.7 Referent
 Limited 410 932 8.8 232 683 56.6 0.682 0.509 to 0.915 0.011
Physical activity (usual activities)
 Normal 3 832 356 82.2 2 562 274 66.9 Referent
 Limited 828 238 17.8 461 112 55.7 0.623 0.497 to 0.780 <0.0001
Physical activity (pain/discomfort)
 Normal 3 243 388 69.6 2 167 417 66.8 Referent
 Limited 1 417 206 30.4 855 969 60.4 0.757 0.622 to 0.922 0.006
Physical activity (anxiety/depression)
 Normal 4 020 865 86.3 2 651 467 65.9 Referent
 Limited 639 729 13.7 371 919 58.1 0.717 0.554 to 0.929 0.012
EQ-5D index (%)
 Index<0.75 560 616 12.0 316 793 56.5 Referent
 0.75≤index < 1.00§ 1 479 603 31.7 885 908 59.9 1.148 0.841 to 1.568 0.638 0.841 0.584 to 1.210 0.573
 Index=1.00§ 2 620 375 56.2 1 820 686 69.5 1.752 1.275 to 2.408 <0.0001 0.930 0.606 to 1.426 1.000
EQ-VAS (0 to 100) 4 660 594 62.0† 3 023 386 64.9 1.008 1.003 to 1.012 0.001
Psychological factors
Perceived health status
 Good§ 1 279 057 27.4 922 424 72.1 1.311 1.007 to 1.707 0.043 1.255 0.958 to 1.643 0.120
 Average 2 077 480 44.6 1 378 474 66.4 Referent
 Bad§ 1 304 058 28.0 722 488 55.4 0.630 0.492 to 0.806 <0.0001 0.79 0.588 to 1.061 0.148
Body shape perception
 Too thin§ 981 355 21.1 617 482 62.9 0.914 0.697 to 1.707 0.456
 Just right 2 055 525 44.1 1 336 044 65.0 Referent
 Too fat§ 1 623 715 34.8 1 069 861 65.9 1.040 0.814 to 1.330 0.719
Stress level
 Low 3 556 134 76.3 2 350 397 66.1 Referent
 High 1 104 460 23.7 672 990 60.9 0.800 0.629 to 1.018 0.070 1.000 0.762 to 1.313 0.998
Depressive mood lasting for 2 weeks
 No 3 881 578 83.3 2 579 702 66.5 Referent
 Yes 779 016 16.7 443 684 57.0 0.668 0.513 to 0.868 0.003 0.795 0.576 to 1.097 0.162
Health-related factors
Vigorous physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 4 150 544 89.1 2 680 694 64.6 Referent
 Exercising 510 050 10.9 342 693 67.2 1.123 0.822 to 1.534 0.467
Moderate physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 4 306 908 92.4 2 791 890 64.8 Referent
 Exercising 353 687 7.6 231 496 65.5 1.028 0.733 to 1.442 0.873
Light physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 2 957 617 63.5 1 912 833 64.7 Referent
 Exercising 1 702 977 36.5 1 110 554 65.2 1.024 0.841 to 1.247 0.814
Restricted use of medical services
 Yes 864 993 18.6 492 523 56.9 0.661 0.516 to 0.847 0.001 0.802 0.608 to 1.059 0.120
 No 3 795 601 81.4 2 530 863 66.7 Referent
Health screening
 Yes 2 954 154 63.4 1 912 266 64.7 0.983 0.804 to 1.202 0.870
 No 1 706 441 36.6 1 111 120 65.1 Referent
Hospital visit in past 2 weeks
 Yes 1 922 260 41.2 1 156 350 60.2 0.705 0.583 to 0.851 0.0003 0.896 0.727 to 1.104 0.301
 No 2 738 335 58.8 1 867 037 68.2 Referent
Hospitalisation in past year
 Yes 572 508 12.3 360 689 63.0 0.912 0.700 to 1.188 0.492
 No 4 088 086 87.7 2 662 698 65.1 Referent
Obesity occurrence
 Underweight§ 159 020 3.4 97 392 61.2 0.894 0.491 to 1.628 1.000
 Normal 2 881 216 61.8 1 840 506 63.9 Referent
 Overweight§ 1 620 358 34.8 1 085 489 67.0 1.148 0.918 to 1.435 0.335
Medical history
Hypertension
 Yes 1 684 501 36.1 1 066 151 63.3 0.898 0.742 to 1.086 0.266
 No 2 976 094 63.9 1 957 235 65.8 Referent
Myocardial infarction
 Yes 70 821 1.5 34 451 48.6 0.507 0.258 to 0.999 0.050 0.538 0.242 to 1.198 0.129
 No 4 589 773 98.5 2 988 935 65.1 Referent
Angina
 Yes 169 542 3.6 89 693 52.9 0.596 0.381 to 0.900 0.024 0.803 0.500 to 1.288 0.363
 No 4 491 052 96.4 2 933 694 65.3 Referent
Asthma
 Yes 192 575 4.1 101 638 52.8 0.591 0.389 to 0.899 0.014 0.765 0.498 to 1.175 0.221
 No 4 468 019 95.9 2 921 748 65.4 Referent
Depression
 Yes 202 039 4.3 130 770 64.7 0.993 0.663 to 1.487 0.974
 No 4 458 555 95.7 2 892 616 64.9 Referent
Renal failure
 Yes 42 069 0.9 19 908 47.3 0.483 0.184 to 1.268 0.139 0.707 0.255 to 1.956 0.503
 No 4 618 526 99.1 3 003 479 65.0 Referent
Diabetes mellitus
 Yes 658 868 14.1 396 751 60.2 0.792 0.618 to 1.202 0.067 0.974 0.740 to 1.281 0.849
 No 4 001 727 85.9 2 626 635 65.6 Referent
Auditory factors
Tinnitus
 No 3 040 249 65.2 2 205 518 72.5 Referent
 Yes 1 620 345 34.8 817 869 50.5 0.386 0.316 to 0.472 <0.0001 0.425 0.344 to 0.525 <0.0001
Occupational noise exposure
 Yes 800 620 17.2 459 993 57.5 0.683 0.520 to 0.897 0.006 0.566 0.423 to 0.758 <0.0001
 No 3 859 974 82.8 2 563 394 66.4 Referent
Laboratory measures
Systolic BP (mm Hg) 4 660 594 126.4† 3 023 386 64.9 1.001 0.996 to 1.007 0.573
Diastolic BP (mm Hg) 4 660 594 77.0† 3 023 386 64.9 1.015 1.006 to 1.024 0.002 1.009 1.000 to 1.019 0.058
Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 4 394 622 191.7† 2 859 596 65.1 1.001 0.998 to 1.003 0.683
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) 4 394 622 50.3† 2 859 596 65.1 1.005 0.998 to 1.013 0.158
Serum TG (mg/dL) 4 394 622 148.7† 2 859 596 65.1 1.000 1.000 to 1.001 0.411
Haemoglobin (g/dL) 4 369 845 14.1† 2 848 403 65.2 1.029 0.968 to 1.093 0.360
Haematocrit (%) 4 369 845 41.9† 2 848 403 65.2 1.008 0.986 to 1.032 0.471
BUN (mg/dL) 4 394 622 15.5† 2 859 596 65.1 0.978 0.958 to 0.998 0.033
Serum creatinine (mg/dL) 4 394 622 0.9† 2 859 596 65.1 1.095 0.725 to 1.655 0.665
Urine protein
 Negative 3 913 238 89.1 2 519 106 64.4 Referent
 Positive 477 957 10.9 315 207 65.9 1.072 0.774 to 1.484 0.675
Urine glucose
 Negative 4 199 401 95.6 2 708 365 64.5 Referent
 Positive 191 793 4.4 125 948 65.7 1.053 0.652 to 1.699 0.833

Bold type indicates significant differences (p<0.05).

*Underestimated HI was defined as having AHL without SHD.

†Continuous variables are denoted by the mean.

‡Prevalence of underestimated HI in total population with AHL.

§Probability values and 95% CIs for ORs were corrected using Bonferroni’s method for cases with multiple testing.

AHL, audiometrically measured hearing loss; BP, blood pressure; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; EQ-5D, Euro Qol-5D; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HI, hearing impairment; SHD, self-reported hearing difficulty; TG, triglycerides.

Associated factors with overestimated hearing impairment

A total of 1858 participants who had SHD were analysed to investigate factors associated with overestimated HI. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses are shown in table 3. In univariable analysis, age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, waist circumference, monthly income, marital status, education level and employment status were significantly associated with overestimated HI compared with those who had both SHD and AHL. For quality of life factors, EQ-5D subscales such as physical activity about mobility, self-care, and usual activity, EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS were significantly associated with overestimated HI. For psychologic factors, self-reported health status, body shape perception and amount of stress in life were significantly associated with overestimation of HI. Overestimation of HI was also significantly associated with vigorous and moderate physical activity, hospital visit and history of hypertension, angina, depression, diabetes mellitus and tinnitus. Systolic BP, HDL cholesterol, blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine levels were also significantly associated with overestimated HI. In multivariable analysis, participants who overestimated HI showed significantly decreased age (OR: 0.905, 95% CI: 0.890 to 0.921) compared with those who had concordant HI. Participants who overestimated HI were more likely to have hypertension (OR: 1.501, 95% CI: 1.061 to 2.123) and depression (OR: 1.772, 95% CI: 1.041 to 3.016) but less likely to report tinnitus (OR 0.523, 95% CI: 0.391 to 0.699) compared with those who had both SHD and AHL.

Table 3.

Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors associated with overestimated hearing impairment

Variables Total population with SHD Overestimated HI* Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis
Weighted frequency Mean† or % Weighted frequency Prevalence (%)‡ OR 95% CI P value OR 95% CI P value
Personal factors
Age (years) 3 089 060 56.3† 1 451 852 47.0 0.915 0.904 to 0.927 <0.0001 0.905 0.890 to 0.921 <0.0001
Sex
 Male 1 574 262 51.0 682 372 43.3 0.741 0.576 to 0.954 0.020 0.660 0.424 to 1.029 0.067
 Female 1 514 797 49.0 769 480 50.8 Referent
Smoke
 Never 1 568 370 50.8 787 885 50.2 Referent
 Past smoker§ 799 930 25.9 314 073 39.3 0.640 0.458 to 0.895 0.006 0.866 0.520 to 1.445 1.000
 Current smoker§ 720 760 23.3 349 894 48.5 0.935 0.640 to 1.365 1.000 0.597 0.351 to 1.017 0.061
Drinking alcohol in past year
 Non-drinker 998 495 32.3 343 984 34.5 Referent
 Drinker 2 090 565 67.7 1 107 867 53.0 2.145 1.650 to 2.788 <0.0001 1.150 0.784 to 1.687 0.475
Marital status
 Ever married 2 792 856 90.4 1 191 925 42.7 0.104 0.048 to 0.223 <0.0001 1.276 0.511 to 3.184 0.601
 Never married 296 204 9.6 259 927 87.8 Referent
Waist circumference (cm) 3 089 060 83.2† 1 451 852 47.0 0.977 0.964 to 0.991 0.001 0.988 0.964 to 1.014 0.363
Body mass index (kg/m2) 3 089 060 24.0† 1 451 852 47.0 1.018 0.979 to 1.059 0.375
Socioeconomic factors
Income
 Lower 847 736 27.4 232 347 27.4 Referent
 Lower middle§ 862 386 27.9 399 476 46.3 2.286 1.481 to 3.526 <0.0001 0.957 0.577 to 1.584 1.000
 Upper middle§ 681 338 22.1 387 641 56.9 3.496 2.187 to 5.588 <0.0001 1.244 0.739 to 2.093 0.951
 Upper§ 697 599 22.6 432 388 62.0 4.318 2.833 to 6.582 <0.0001 1.468 0.857 to 2.514 0.266
Education
 Less than high school 1 610 010 52.1 515 579 32.0 Referent
 High school or more 1 479 050 47.9 936 273 63.3 3.661 2.858 to 4.690 <0.0001 1.166 0.792 to 1.716 0.436
Employment status
 Employed 1 738 450 56.3 902 568 51.9 1.575 1.224 to 2.027 0.0004 0.912 0.625 to 1.330 0.631
 Unemployed 1 350 609 43.7 549 284 40.7 Referent
Quality of life
EQ-5D (%)
Physical activity (mobility)
 Normal 2 262 057 73.2 1 203 774 53.2 Referent
 Limited 827 002 26.8 248 078 30.0 0.377 0.291 to 0.488 <0.0001
Physical activity (self-care)
 Normal 2 855 547 92.4 1 396 588 48.9 Referent
 Limited 233 513 7.6 55 264 23.7 0.324 0.200 to 0.524 <0.0001
Physical activity (usual activities)
 Normal 2 566 840 83.1 1 296 758 50.5 Referent
 Limited 522 220 16.9 155 094 29.7 0.414 0.306 to 0.560 <0.0001
Physical activity (pain/discomfort)
 Normal 2 084 203 67.5 1 008 232 48.4 Referent
 Limited 1 004 857 32.5 443 620 44.1 0.844 0.667 to 1.067 0.156
Physical activity (anxiety/depression)
 Normal 2 575 106 83.4 1 205 708 46.8 Referent
 Limited 513 954 16.6 246 144 47.9 1.044 0.769 to 1.418 0.783
EQ-5D index (%)
 Index<0.75 352 500 11.4 108 676 30.8 Referent
 0.75≤index < 1.00§ 1 112 495 36.0 518 799 46.6 1.960 1.219 to 3.151 0.003 0.987 0.563 to 1.730 1.000
 Index=1.00§ 1 624 065 52.6 824 376 50.8 2.312 1.470 to 3.638 <0.0001 0.705 0.389 to 1.275 0.373
 EQ-VAS (0 to 100) 3 089 060 69.1† 1 451 852 47.0 1.011 1.005 to 1.017 0.001
Psychological factors
Perceived health status
 Good§ 759 297 24.6 402 665 53.0 1.164 0.798 to 1.697 0.736 1.342 0.893 to 2.017 0.212
 Fair 1 377 238 44.6 678 232 49.2 Referent
 Poor§ 952 524 30.8 370 955 38.9 0.657 0.484 to 0.892 0.004 0.957 0.640 to 1.431 1.000
Body shape perception
 Too thin§ 549 060 17.8 185 188 33.7 0.641 0.422 to 0.973 0.035 1.031 0.608 to 1.746 1.000
 Just right 1 290 616 41.8 571 135 44.3 Referent
 Too fat§ 1 249 383 40.4 695 530 55.7 1.582 1.158 to 2.162 0.002 1.312 0.874 to 1.968 0.269
Stress level
 Low 2 134 226 69.1 928 488 43.5 Referent
 High 954 834 30.9 523 364 54.8 1.575 1.198 to 2.072 0.001 0.980 0.698 to 1.376 0.908
Depressive mood lasting for 2 weeks
 No 2 455 973 79.5 1 154 097 47.0 Referent
 Yes 633 087 20.5 297 755 47.0 1.002 0.730 to 1.375 0.992
Health-related factors
Vigorous physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 2 676 411 86.6 1 206 561 45.1 Referent
 Exercising 412 648 13.4 245 291 59.4 1.785 1.207 to 2.641 0.004 1.232 0.798 to 1.901 0.346
Moderate physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 2 793 226 90.4 1 278 209 45.8 Referent
 Exercising 295 834 9.6 173 643 58.7 1.684 1.103 to 2.571 0.016 1.191 0.738 to 1.923 0.474
Light physical activity practice
 Non-exercising 1 925 733 62.3 880 948 45.7 Referent
 Exercising 1 163 327 37.7 570 903 49.1 1.143 0.887 to 1.473 0.302
Restricted use of medical services
 Yes 714 039 23.1 341 569 47.8 1.045 0.774 to 1.409 0.775
 No 2 375 021 76.9 1 110 283 46.7 Referent
Health screening in past 2 years
 Yes 1 904 102 61.6 862 214 45.3 0.836 0.651 to 1.073 0.158 1.134 0.823 to 1.562 0.441
 No 1 184 958 38.4 589 638 49.8 Referent
Hospital visit in past 2 weeks
 Yes 1 326 445 42.9 560 535 42.3 0.715 0.567 to 0.902 0.005 1.163 0.873 to 1.551 0.302
 No 1 762 615 57.1 891 317 50.6 Referent
Hospitalisation in past year
 Yes 423 019 13.7 211 199 49.9 1.146 0.775 to 1.695 0.495
 No 2 666 041 86.3 1 240 652 46.5 Referent
Obesity occurrence
 Underweight§ 112 572 3.6 50 943 45.3 0.955 0.467 to 1.957 1.000
 Normal 1 941 254 62.8 900 545 46.4 Referent
 Overweight§ 1 035 234 33.5 500 364 48.3 1.081 0.819 to 1.428 1.000
Medical history
Hypertension
 Yes 937 031 30.3 318 681 34.0 0.463 0.361 to 0.595 <0.0001 1.501 1.061 to 2.123 0.022
 No 2 152 029 69.7 1 133 171 52.7 Referent
Myocardial infarction
 Yes 47 034 1.5 10 664 22.7 0.326 0.101 to 1.052 0.061 0.582 0.129 to 2.621 0.480
 No 3 042 026 98.5 1 441 188 47.4 Referent
Angina
 Yes 105 569 3.4 25 719 24.4 0.352 0.198 to 0.625 0.0004 0.848 0.422 to 1.705 0.643
 No 2 983 490 96.6 1 426 132 47.8 Referent
Asthma
 Yes 142 099 4.6 51 162 36.0 0.621 0.342 to 1.128 0.117 0.991 0.482 to 2.037 0.980
 No 2 946 961 95.4 1 400 690 47.5 Referent
Depression
 Yes 167 870 5.4 96 600 57.5 1.566 1.009 to 2.432 0.046 1.772 1.041 to 3.016 0.035
 No 2 921 190 94.6 1 355 251 46.4 Referent
Renal failure
 Yes 27 962 0.9 5801 20.7 0.292 0.049 to 1.733 0.175 0.442 0.065 to 2.987 0.402
 No 3 061 098 99.1 1 446 051 47.2 Referent
Diabetes mellitus
 Yes 375 984 12.2 113 868 30.3 0.447 0.303 to 0.658 <0.0001 1.140 0.725 to 1.792 0.569
 No 2 713 075 87.8 1 337 984 49.3 Referent
Auditory factors
Tinnitus
 No 1 787 254 57.9 952 523 53.3 Referent
 Yes 1 301 805 42.1 499 329 38.4 0.545 0.427 to 0.697 <0.0001 0.523 0.391 to 0.699 <0.0001
Occupational noise exposure
 Yes 630 805 20.4 290 178 46.0 0.951 0.687 to 1.315 0.760
 No 2 458 254 79.6 1 161 674 47.3 Referent
Laboratory measures
Systolic BP (mm Hg) 3 089 060 122.8† 1 451 852 47.0 0.974 0.966 to 0.981 <0.0001 0.996 0.984 to 1.008 0.469
Diastolic BP (mm Hg) 3 089 060 76.5† 1 451 852 47.0 1.011 0.999 to 1.023 0.083 1.013 0.993 to 1.033 0.215
Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 2 931 858 191.5† 1 396 832 47.6 1.001 0.997 to 1.004 0.723
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) 2 931 858 50.7† 1 396 832 47.6 1.013 1.003 to 1.023 0.011
Serum TG (mg/dL) 2 931 858 141.3† 1 396 832 47.6 0.999 0.998 to 1.000 0.149
Haemoglobin (g/dL) 2 913 750 14.1† 1 392 308 47.8 1.038 0.953 to 1.132 0.392
Haematocrit (%) 2 913 750 41.9† 1 392 308 47.8 1.012 0.980 to 1.045 0.463
BUN (mg/dL) 2 931 858 14.9† 1 535 026 52.4 0.904 0.873 to 0.936 <0.0001
Serum creatinine (mg/dL) 2 931 858 0.9† 1 535 026 52.4 0.330 0.169 to 0.646 0.001
Urine protein
 Negative 2 602 155 89.2 1 208 023 46.4 Referent
 Positive 314 670 10.8 151 920 48.3 1.077 0.700 to 1.658 0.734
Urine glucose
 Negative 2 812 935 96.4 1 321 898 47.0 Referent
 Positive 103 890 3.6 38 045 36.6 0.652 0.342 to 1.243 0.193

Bold text indicates significant differences (p<0.05).

*Overestimated HI was defined as having SHD without AHL.

†Continuous variables are denoted by the mean.

‡Prevalence of overestimated HI in total population with SHD.

§Probability values and 95% CIs for OR were corrected using Bonferroni’s method for cases with multiple testing.

AHL, audiometrically measured hearing loss; BP, blood pressure; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; EQ-5D, Euro Qol-5D; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HI, hearing impairment; SHD, self-reported hearing difficulty; TG, triglycerides.

Discussion

This cross-sectional survey of Korean population aged ≥19 years found that 18.2% of participants had a discrepancy between their SHD and AHL. Most (71.9%) of these participants had AHL but no SHD (underestimated HI) while the rest (28.1%) had SHD but no AHL (overestimated HI, table 1). The accuracy of hearing assessments in the present study (81.8%) was higher than that reported in elderly population of USA (71.8%),3 but similar to that reported in the general population of Australia (82%).6 Previously, Kim et al 5 categorised the self-reported hearing into three categories (no difficulty, a little difficulty and much difficulty) and classified the mean pure-tone threshold of the better ear into three groups (<25 dB, ≥25 dB and <40 dB, and ≥40 dB). When the participants of previous study5 were reclassified as in our study, the accuracy of hearing assessments was slightly higher (83.2%) than our result. In addition, our result showed that 5.1% (733 of 14 325) of participants reported overestimated HI and 13.1% (1876 of 14 325) reported underestimated HI. However, reclassified results in Kim et al showed that 6.3% (1237 of 19 642) of participants reported overestimated HI and 10.5% (2059 of 19 642) of participants reported underestimated HI. Although present study and Kim et al analysed using same dataset, participants with abnormal TMs were excluded in our study, but included in Kim et al. Thus, differences in prevalence can be explained by the fact that individuals who have abnormal TM are more likely to report SHD and are more likely to have undergone a previous hearing evaluation.

Our results showed that both non-auditory factors (demographic factors and medical histories) and auditory factors (tinnitus and occupational noise exposure) were associated with discrepancy between self-reported hearing and audiometry in multivariable analysis. For demographic factors, participants who underestimated or overestimated their HI were significantly younger compared with participants who had concordant HI (tables 2 and 3). It is well known that audiometric HL dramatically increases with increasing age.23 SHD is also increased with age as difficulty of speech understanding in adverse listening conditions increases24 due to decreased synaptic loss,25 working memory capacity26 27 or impaired temporal processing.12 28 Our reference group was defined as participants who had both SHD and AHL (concordant HI), so it is highly likely that older participants will have both SHD and AHL. Therefore, it is not surprising that younger participants were less likely to have SHD among participants with audiometric HL (table 2) and had fewer audiometric HL among participants with SHD (table 3). In contrast to our result, Kamil et al 3 has reported that old age was related to underestimation of HI. The contradictory result between our study and Kamil et al may be due to the fact that younger people who underestimated HI were not included because they examined participants aged ≥50 years. Among 2609 participants with discrepancy between SHD and AHL in this study, underestimated HI was more prevalent in older participants than overestimated HI, and it might be attributed to a tendency of older population to consider their HL to be ‘normal’ for their age.3

For medical-related factors, participants who overestimated their HI significantly had more hypertension and depression than those who had concordant HI (table 3). Because hypertension is known to increase the risk of cochlea damage possibly through malfunction of the stria vascularis,,29 it might be related to early development of preclinical HL in auditory way. Also, hypertension and depression may influence the SHD in non-auditory way. Subjects with hypertension have worse overall health than subjects without hypertension, which in turn has been shown to be associated with an increased likelihood of reporting HD.30 Studies have suggested that personality traits of neuroticism had a more adverse perception of their HD,31 32 and it is widely known as an important factor that influences depression.33 Accordingly, hypertension and depression may lead to an increased perception of HD. Moreover, as the present study is cross-sectional, it cannot be excluded that hypertension and depression is a result of SHD.

For auditory factors, tinnitus and occupational noise exposure were associated with concordant HI (tables 2 and 3). It is possible that these participants had an audiometric assessment for their tinnitus or occupational health screening programme and had known about their hearing status. Participants who had been exposed to occupational noise tended to have less underestimated HI regardless of tinnitus (table 2). As they are more likely to have severe HL than other participants, the severity of HL may affect SHD.9

Although a similar study from same dataset has been recently reported,5 our study has several significant differences in approach. First, we excluded data from participants with abnormal TM who are more likely to have undergone a previous hearing evaluation. Second, we excluded normal hearing population with normal audiometry (<25 dB) and without SHD in the reference group, and confined the concordant HI group to those who showed both SHD and AHL as reference. However, Kim et al 5 had the concordance group including normal hearing population as reference. Because a large number of normal hearing people (93%) were included in their reference group, their analysis is likely to be biased by factors related to SHD or AHL, rather than focusing on the discrepancy between subjective hearing assessment and audiometry itself. Subgroup analysis for participants with ≥25 dB in Kim et al 5 showed that age, sex, education, occupation and stress were not associated with the discrepancy between subjective hearing assessment and audiometric thresholds. Lastly, this study analysed more variables including smoking status, alcohol consumption, waist circumference, body mass index, monthly income, marital status, quality of life, self-reported health status, body shape perception, noise exposure, physical activity, the use of medical service, current disease and serological data. Therefore, we expected that this study could provide more comprehensive information related to discrepancy between SHD and AHL.

In summary, the prevalence of discrepancy between SHD and AHL was 18.2% in South Korea. Age, medical histories of hypertension and depression, tinnitus and occupational noise exposure were associated with inconsistent results between self-reported and audiometrically measured hearing assessment in multivariable analysis. Understanding the factors related to self-reported hearing will assist clinicians in interpreting subjective reports of hearing and using these data as a surrogate measure of audiometry. These factors need to be considered when determining whether to conduct a hearing test, even if the patients do not report an HI.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Acknowledgments

We thank the 150 residents of Otorhinolaryngology Departments of 47 training hospitals in South Korea and members of the Division of Chronic Disease Surveillance in Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for collecting data in this survey and their dedicated work.

Footnotes

JEC and IJM contributed equally.

Contributors: JEC and IJM designed research and wrote the main paper. S-YB and SWK collected and analysed data. Y-SC provided critical revision and discussed the results and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethics approval: All participants provided written informed consent before completing the survey. KNHANES followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki for biomedical research. It was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (IRB No. 2010-02CON-21-C, 2011-02CON-06-C and 2012-01EXP-01-2C). Approval for this research study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (IRB No. 2016-06-142).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: Data are available from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) Data Access for researchers. Because annually, Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention published the reports and microdata of KNHANES with survey manuals through the official website of KNHANES (http://knhanes.cdc.go.kr), all KNHANES data are de-identified and available to the public.

Patient consent for publication: Obtained.

References

  • 1. Kiely KM, Gopinath B, Mitchell P, et al. Evaluating a dichotomized measure of self-reported hearing loss against gold standard audiometry: prevalence estimates and age bias in a pooled national data set. J Aging Health 2012;24:439–58. 10.1177/0898264311425088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, et al. Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Audiology 1998;37:295–301. 10.3109/00206099809072983 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kamil RJ, Genther DJ, Lin FR. Factors associated with the accuracy of subjective assessments of hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2015;36:164–7. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Diao M, Sun J, Jiang T, et al. Comparison between self-reported hearing and measured hearing thresholds of the elderly in China. Ear Hear 2014;35:e228–32. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kim SY, Kim HJ, Kim MS, et al. Discrepancy between self-assessed hearing status and measured audiometric evaluation. PLoS One 2017;12:e0182718 10.1371/journal.pone.0182718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kirk KM, McGuire A, Nasveld PE, et al. Comparison of self-reported and audiometrically-measured hearing loss in the Australian Defence Force. Int J Audiol 2012;51:294–8. 10.3109/14992027.2011.625981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Tremblay KL, Pinto A, Fischer ME, et al. Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties Among Adults With Normal Audiograms: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study. Ear Hear 2015;36:e290–9. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Smith W, et al. Validation of self-reported hearing loss. The Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:1371–8. 10.1093/ije/30.6.1371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, et al. Self-reported hearing handicap and audiometric measures in older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2000;11:67–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Spankovich C, Gonzalez VB, Su D, et al. Self reported hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and normal audiometric thresholds, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2002. Hear Res 2017. 10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Hannula S, Bloigu R, Majamaa K, et al. Self-reported hearing problems among older adults: prevalence and comparison to measured hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011;22:550–9. 10.3766/jaaa.22.8.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Clinard CG, Tremblay KL, Krishnan AR. Aging alters the perception and physiological representation of frequency: evidence from human frequency-following response recordings. Hear Res 2010;264:48–55. 10.1016/j.heares.2009.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Swanepoel deW, Eikelboom RH, Hunter ML, et al. Self-reported hearing loss in baby boomers from the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study: audiometric correspondence and predictive value. J Am Acad Audiol 2013;24:514–21. quiz 29 10.3766/jaaa.24.6.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Chen DS, Genther DJ, Betz J, et al. Association between hearing impairment and self-reported difficulty in physical functioning. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:850–6. 10.1111/jgs.12800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Ramkissoon I, Cole M. Self-reported hearing difficulty versus audiometric screening in younger and older smokers and nonsmokers. J Clin Med Res 2011;3:183–90. 10.4021/jocmr611w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Kweon S, Kim Y, Jang MJ, et al. Data resource profile: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:69–77. 10.1093/ije/dyt228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Institute. ANS. Specification for audiometers. ANSI S3.6-1996. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006;26:410–20. 10.1177/0272989X06290495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Choo J, Jeon S, Lee J. Gender differences in health-related quality of life associated with abdominal obesity in a Korean population. BMJ Open 2014;4:e003954 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Noh JW, Lee SA, Choi HJ, et al. Relationship between the intensity of physical activity and depressive symptoms among Korean adults: analysis of Korea Health Panel data. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1233–7. 10.1589/jpts.27.1233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Seo YJ, Ko SB, Ha TH, et al. Association of hearing impairment with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study of the Korean general population. BMC Nephrol 2015;16:154 10.1186/s12882-015-0151-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Hong JW, Jeon JH, Ku CR, et al. The prevalence and factors associated with hearing impairment in the Korean adults: the 2010-2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (observational study). Medicine 2015;94:e611 10.1097/MD.0000000000000611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Humes LE. Understanding the speech-understanding problems of older adults. Am J Audiol 2013;22:303–5. 10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0066) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Barbee CM, James JA, Park JH, et al. Effectiveness of Auditory Measures for Detecting Hidden Hearing Loss and/or Cochlear Synaptopathy: A Systematic Review. Semin Hear 2018;39:172–209. 10.1055/s-0038-1641743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Meister H, Schreitmüller S, Ortmann M, et al. Effects of Hearing Loss and Cognitive Load on Speech Recognition with Competing Talkers. Front Psychol 2016;7:301 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Füllgrabe C, Rosen S. Investigating the Role of Working Memory in Speech-in-noise Identification for Listeners with Normal Hearing. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016;894:29–36. 10.1007/978-3-319-25474-6_4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Clinard CG, Tremblay KL. Aging degrades the neural encoding of simple and complex sounds in the human brainstem. J Am Acad Audiol 2013;24:590–9. quiz 643-4 10.3766/jaaa.24.7.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Przewoźny T, Gójska-Grymajło A, Kwarciany M, et al. Hypertension and cochlear hearing loss. Blood Press 2015;24:199–205. 10.3109/08037051.2015.1049466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Chang HP, Ho CY, Chou P. The factors associated with a self-perceived hearing handicap in elderly people with hearing impairment--results from a community-based study. Ear Hear 2009;30:576–83. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ac127a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: contributions to self-report hearing aid outcomes. Ear Hear 2007;28:141–62. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31803126a4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Jang Y, Mortimer JA, Haley WE, et al. Nonauditory determinants of self-perceived hearing problems among older adults: the role of stressful life conditions, neuroticism, and social resources. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002;57:M466–9. 10.1093/gerona/57.7.M466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Navrady LB, Ritchie SJ, Chan SWY, et al. Intelligence and neuroticism in relation to depression and psychological distress: Evidence from two large population cohorts. Eur Psychiatry 2017;43:58–65. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.12.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Reviewer comments
Author's manuscript

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES