听力损失的污名化与听力损失成人中助听器的使用：一项横断面研究
Stigma of hearing loss and the use of hearing aids among adults with hearing loss: a cross-sectional study.
文献信息
| PMID | 42851450 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Rania Alkahtani |
| 作者单位 | Department of Health Communication Sciences, College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. |
| 期刊 | Frontiers in public health |
| SCI 分区 | Q1 |
| IF | 4.3 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
目的： 本研究探讨了沙特阿拉伯成人中与听力损失相关的污名化及助听器使用情况。研究考察了听力损失污名（HLS）和助听器污名（HAsS）的患病率及其与助听器使用和部分人口学特征的关联。
方法： 对403名自我报告听力损失的成人进行了横断面调查。参与者完成了一份通过便利抽样分发的在线问卷，问卷包含评估HLS、HAsS以及与听力损失相关的个人痛苦/不足感的经过验证的工具。
结果： 分别有50.12%和82.93%的参与者报告了高水平的HLS和HAsS。较高的HLS水平与助听器使用、较低的教育程度、未婚状态、较低的收入、更严重的自我报告听力损失以及更长的听力损失持续时间显著相关。值得注意的是，收入较低的老年人报告的污名水平最高。在有医学指征使用助听器的参与者中，较高的HAsS与较低的助听器使用几率相关，而在调整其他模型协变量后，较高的HLS与较高的使用几率相关。HLS还与个人痛苦和不足感密切相关。
结论： 在研究样本中观察到高水平的HLS和HAsS，突显了污名化是一个突出的心理社会问题。HLS和HAsS与助听器使用表现出不同的关联，较高的HAsS与较低的使用几率相关，而较高的HLS与较高的使用几率相关。这些发现凸显了在听力保健中应对污名化可能的重要性，并支持进一步研究在沙特背景下应对听力损失和助听器相关污名化的方法。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVES: This study explored stigma associated with hearing loss and hearing aid use among adults in Saudi Arabia. It examined the prevalence of hearing loss stigma (HLS) and hearing aid stigma (HAsS) and their associations with hearing aid use and selected demographic characteristics.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 403 adults with self-reported hearing loss. Participants completed an online questionnaire, distributed through convenience sampling, that included validated instruments assessing HLS, HAsS, and personal distress/inadequacy related to hearing loss.
RESULTS: High levels of HLS and HAsS were reported by 50.12% and 82.93% of participants, respectively. Higher HLS levels were significantly associated with hearing aid use, lower educational attainments, unmarried status, lower incomes, greater self-reported hearing loss severity, and a longer duration of hearing loss. Notably, older individuals with lower incomes reported the highest levels of stigma. Among participants medically indicated for hearing aids, higher HAsS was associated with lower odds of hearing aid use, whereas higher HLS was associated with greater odds of use after adjustment for other model covariates. HLS was also strongly associated with personal distress and inadequacy.
CONCLUSIONS: High levels of HLS and HAsS were observed within the study sample, highlighting stigma as a prominent psychosocial concern. HLS and HAsS showed different associations with hearing aid use, with higher HAsS associated with lower odds of use and higher HLS associated with greater odds of use. These findings highlight the potential importance of addressing stigma within hearing healthcare and support further investigation of approaches to address HL- and HA-related stigma in the Saudi context.