Article record

美国医疗服务不足成年人的听力筛查：筛查方式与决定因素的范围综述

Hearing Screening Among Underserved US Adults: A Scoping Review of Modalities and Determinants.

综述 Meta耳科IF 2.3Q2

文献信息

PMID	42847671
原文	在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗
发表日期	2026
作者	Kashika Bharol 查看其他 8 位作者 Leyda S Marrero Morales；Armita Norouzi；Komal Aggarwal；Kyle Polen；Kunal Kapoor；Sarah E Hughes；Yew Song Cheng；Megan L Durr
作者单位	University of Massachusetts T.H. Chan School of Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 查看其他 7 条单位信息 School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.；School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.；Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.；EarTone Hearing Aids Center, San Mateo, California, USA.；Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.；University of Queensland SOM-Ochsner Clinical School, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.；University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
期刊	The Laryngoscope
SCI 分区	Q2
IF	2.3
研究类型	综述 Meta · 临床
所属专科	耳科

中文摘要

目的： 评估关于美国成年人群听力筛查结局及后续随访的现有文献。
数据来源： PubMed、Ovid Medline、Scopus和CINAHL数据库。
综述方法： 在PubMed、Ovid Medline、Scopus和CINAHL中进行了全面文献检索，纳入2000年1月至2026年1月发表的研究。纳入标准针对评估美国医疗服务不足成年人听力筛查策略的研究。研究根据其重点进行分类，包括描述筛查方式、分析筛查的促进因素/障碍，或两者兼有。
结果： 在筛选的5826篇文章中，33篇符合纳入标准。关于筛查方式的文章包括由提供者实施的问卷、听力设备辅助测试、自我报告的单条目筛查问题、社区卫生工作者（CHW）主导/基于社区的方法以及基于调查的评估。每种筛查方式的使用因人群、环境和可行性而异。在社区环境中，问卷和CHW主导或文化定制的方法是实施听力筛查最常见的方式。成本、污名化和教育构成障碍，而初级保健工作流程整合和提供者鼓励则是促进因素。
结论： 多种方式正被用于对成年人群进行听力筛查。实施的可行性因研究环境而异，并受到促进因素的支持，包括整合到初级保健中、提供者的鼓励和患者教育。为了提高所有社区（包括医疗服务不足社区）的听力筛查率，重要的是要认识到筛查的障碍和促进因素。一致的指南、对实施的关注以及提供者之间的合作将在此过程中最为有益。
证据等级： 不适用。

英文摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing literature on hearing screening outcomes and follow-through among the adult population in the US.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases.
REVIEW METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL for studies published from January 2000 to January 2026. Inclusion criteria targeted studies assessing hearing screening strategies for underserved adults in the US. Studies were categorized based on their focus, including describing a screening modality, analyzing the facilitators/barriers to screening, or both.
RESULTS: Of 5826 articles screened, 33 met the inclusion criteria. Articles on screening modalities included provider-administered questionnaires, audiology device-assisted tests, self-reported single-item screening questions, community health worker (CHW)-led/community-based approaches, and survey-based assessments. The utilization of each screening modality varied by population, setting, and feasibility. In the community setting, questionnaires and CHW-led or culturally tailored approaches were the most common methods of administering hearing screening. Cost, stigma, and education presented barriers, while primary care workflow integration and provider encouragement emerged as facilitators.
CONCLUSION: A variety of modalities are being utilized to conduct hearing screening for adult populations. The feasibility of implementation varies by study setting and is supported by facilitators including integration into primary care, encouragement by providers, and patient education. In order to improve the rates of hearing screening among all communities, including those that are underserved, it is important to acknowledge both the barriers and facilitators to screening. Consistent guidelines, a focus on implementation, and partnerships across providers will be most beneficial in this pursuit.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.