You are here

Hearing and Other Sensory or Communication Disorders

Expand All National Snapshots

Hearing screening, newborns, 2001–2010

Increase Desired

SOURCES: National Vital Statistics System—Natality (NVSS-N), CDC/NCHS; State-based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Program Network, CDC; and/or specific State data.

NOTES: Data are for proportion of newborns who were screened for hearing loss by no later than age 1 month (obj. ENT-VSL-1.1), had an audiologic evaluation by age 3 months (obj. ENT-VSL-1.2), and were enrolled in appropriate intervention services no later than age 6 months (obj. ENT-VSL-1.3). Due to changes in survey methodology, 2005 and 2006 data are not comparable with other years. The number of births is based on occurrence data from NCHS for years 2005 and 2006. Birth data for 2007–2010 are based on State-reported from vital registration birth data. 

The proportions of newborns who were screened for hearing loss by no later than age 1 month, had an audiologic evaluation by age 3 months, and were enrolled in appropriate intervention services no later than age 6 months increased between 2001 and 2010, from 66.0% to 91.0%, from 56.0% to 72.0%, and from 57.0% to 55.0%, respectively. Data were unavailable to assess the statistical significance of these observed changes. 

 
Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Office visits for otitis media, children and adolescents, 1997–2010

Decrease Desired

SOURCES: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), CDC/NCHS; National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTE: Data are for visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media (ICD-9-CM codes 381.0–381.4, 382) among children and adolescents under age 18.

The rate of visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media among children and adolescents under age 18 declined 25.7% between 1997 and 2007, from 344.7 to 256.1 visits per 1,000 persons.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Office visits for otitis media, children and adolescents, 2007, 2009, and 2010

Decrease Desired

SOURCES: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), CDC/NCHS; National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTES: Data are for visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media (ICD-9-CM codes 381.0–381.4, 382) among children and adolescents under age 18. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The categories ‘white, non-Hispanic’ and ‘black, non-Hispanic’ include persons for whom only one racial group was recorded. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Confidence Interval= 95% confidence interval.

 

 

The rate of visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media among children and adolescents under age 18 increased 3.9% between 2007 and 2010, from 246.6 to 256.1 visits per 1,000 persons (although this change was not statistically significant), and varied by race and sex. For example, in 2010:

  • Non-Hispanic white children and adolescents under age 18 had 307.0 office visits for otitis media per 1,000 persons, more than one and a half times the number of visits among Hispanic or Latino children and adolescents, 188.1 per 1,000.

  • Males under age 18 had 284.6 office visits for otitis media per 1,000 persons, compared with 226.2 visits per 1,000 among females under aged 18, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Office visits for otitis media, children and adolescents, 2007, 2009, and 2010

Decrease Desired

SOURCES: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), CDC/NCHS; National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), CDC/NCHS.

NOTES: Data are for visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media (ICD-9-CM codes 381.0–381.4, 382) among children and adolescents under age 18. 

confidence interval = 95% confidence interval.

The rate of visits to ambulatory care facilities with a diagnosis of otitis media among children and adolescents under age 18 years varied by age. For example, in 2010, children aged 4 years and under had 609.1 office visits for otitis media per 1,000 persons, nearly four times the number of visits among children aged 5–11 years, 159.1 per 1,000, and almost ten times the number of visits among children and adolescents aged 12–17 years, 62.5 per 1,000.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014

Use of hearing aids, adults with hearing loss, 2001–2007

Increase Desired

SOURCES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), CDC/NCHS; National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), CDC/NCHS. 

NOTES: Data are for adults aged 20–69 (objective ENT-VSL-3.1) and adults aged 70 and over (objective ENT-VSL-3.3) with hearing impairments who had ever used a hearing aid or assistive listening devices. Rates for adults aged 20–69 are age adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

 

The use of hearing aids among adults aged 20–69 with hearing impairments decreased slightly between 2001 and 2006, from 165.9 to 162.7 per 1,000 (age adjusted). The use of hearing aids among adults aged 70 and over with hearing impairments increased between 2001 and 2007, from 255.2 to 289.1 per 1,000. However, these changes were not statistically significant.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

Hearing exam in past 5 years, adults, 2003–04

Increase Desired

SOURCE: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), CDC/NCHS.

NOTE: Data are for adults aged 20–69 (objective ENT-VSL-4.1) and 70 and over (objective ENT-VSL-4.2) who had had a hearing exam within the past 5 years. 

Confidence Interval = 95% confidence interval.

 

The proportion of adults who had a hearing exam within the past 5 years varied by age. In 2003–04, 46.8% of adults aged 80 and over had a hearing exam within the past 5 years, compared with 34.1% of adults aged 70–79, 26.3% of adults aged 60–69, 30.0% of adults aged 40–59, and 27.9% of adults aged 20–39.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

Hearing exam in past 5 years, adults, 2003–04

Increase Desired

SOURCE: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), CDC/NCHS. NOTE: Data are for adults aged 20–69 (objective ENT-VSL-4.1) and 70 and over (objective ENT-VSL-4.2) who had had a hearing exam within the past 5 years. Data for adults aged 20–69 are age adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

Confidence Interval= 95% confidence interval.

In 2003–04, 38.5% of adults aged 70 and over and 28.6% (age adjusted) of adults aged 20–69 had a hearing exam within the past 5 years. Rates varied by sex. For example, 36.5% (age adjusted) of males aged 20–69 had a hearing exam within the past 5 years, compared with 20.9% of females aged 20–69.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

Noise-induced hearing loss, adults, 1999–2002 and 2003–04

Decrease Desired

SOURCE: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), CDC/NCHS.

NOTES: Data are for adults aged 20–69 who had elevated hearing thresholds, or audiometric notches, in high frequencies (3, 4, or 6 kHz) in both ears, signifying noise-induced hearing loss, and are age adjusted using the year 2000 standard population. Respondents were asked to select one or more races. The categories white and black include persons for whom only one racial group was recorded. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 

Confidence Interval= 95% confidence interval.

In 2003–04, 121.4 per 1,000 adults aged 20–69 (age adjusted) had noise-induced hearing loss, a small increase from 1999–2002; however, this change was not statistically significant. The rate varied by race and ethnicity as well as by sex; however, differences by race and ethnicity were not statistically significant. For example, in 2003–04:

  • 140.9 per 1,000 Mexican American adults aged 20–69 (age adjusted) had noise-induced hearing loss, compared with 133.3 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white and 85.4 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic black adults aged 20–69.

  • 176.2 per 1,000 males aged 20–69 (age adjusted) had noise-induced hearing loss, compared with 72.5 per 1,000 among females aged 20–69.

Revised: Thursday, March 28, 2013

National Snapshots Help

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020 NATIONAL SNAPSHOTS

A User's Guide

  1. National snapshots provide a visual display of progress for selected objectives in each Healthy People 2020 Topic Area, whenever data are available.

  2. The snapshot heading describes the snapshot theme, the population to which the snapshot applies (when needed for clarification), and the data year(s). The snapshot heading is not meant to capture the full scientific scope of the objective(s) that is (are) displayed. The user can find complete technical information about the objective(s) in the Data Details.

  3. The snapshot visual display is generally one of three types: a line graph, a bar chart, or a map. 

  4. The snapshot notes and footnotes indicate any technical information about the data that the user needs to correctly interpret the visual display, together with any key data limitations (when applicable). Although the snapshots are intended to be standalone, the user should consult the objective(s) Data Details for the full range of methodology issues that may impact interpretation.

  5. The snapshot source(s) indicate the data source(s) used to create the visual display.

  6. Age-adjusted data are adjusted using the year 2000 standard population.

  7. Education and income are the primary measures of socioeconomic status in Healthy People 2020. Unless otherwise noted, income is defined as a family’s income before taxes; thus, the terms “income” and “family income” are used interchangeably in the snapshots.

  8. To facilitate comparisons among groups and over time, while adjusting for family size and for inflation, Healthy People 2020 categorizes family income using the Poverty Threshold (PT), sometimes also referred to as the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), developed by the Census Bureau. Unless otherwise overridden by considerations specific to the data system, the five categories of family income primarily used are: 

    1. Below the PT (i.e., less than 100% of the PT) 

    2. At 100%–199% of the PT 

    3. At 200%–399% of the PT 

    4. At 400%–599% of the PT 

    5. At or above 600% of the PT.

  9. A snapshot narrative paragraph highlights some key features of the visual display. The narrative text is not meant to provide an exhaustive analysis of the data displayed. For a more in-depth analysis, the user should refer to the applicable data table(s) and objective(s) Data Details.

  10. The user should keep in mind the following: 

    1. When two rates or proportions are highlighted for comparison (and measures of variability are available), the user may interpret the highlighted difference to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level, unless otherwise stated.

    2. Only selected differences are highlighted in the narrative text. Differences visible in the visual data display but not highlighted in the text still may well be statistically significant.

Revised: Monday, August 25, 2014