Prospective cohort study analyzes hearing loss impact on quality of life in individuals with intellectual disabilities, indicating the need for regular audiometric tests.
Background People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to have hearing loss than the general population, but in most cases, it remains unrecognised and unmanaged. The aims of this study were to determine whether the hearing status of people with intellectual disabilities can be correctly evaluated by themselves and/or their caregivers, and whether hearing loss compromises the hearing‐related quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities. Method In the prospective cohort study, HörGeist, 1053 individuals with intellectual disabilities received hearing screening and, where necessary, diagnostic assessment and intervention within their living environment. A self‐developed multipart questionnaire, including items regarding hearing‐related quality of life, was answered by caregivers of the participants and was cross‐checked with the results of the hearing tests. A multivariable regression was performed to verify an association between the hearing‐related quality of life score and the degree of hearing loss. Results Hearing loss was diagnosed in 463 (44.0%) participants; thereof, only 120 (25.9%) cases were known beforehand. In 404 participants (59.0%) and 580 caregivers (61.5%), hearing status was rated correctly; it was overestimated in 34.6% and 33.4%, respectively (sensitivity: 0.223/0.271, respectively). The mean hearing‐related quality of life score was 3.0 of 4 possible points. The multivariable regression revealed a small but significant association between the degree of hearing loss and hearing‐related quality of life ( β = −0.069; p < 0.001; adjusted R 2 = 0.081). Conclusions Regular audiometric tests are recommended for improving the hearing‐related quality of life in people with intellectual disabilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zielonkowski et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: