Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.29(5) > 1096442

Go and Park: Effects of Subjective Hearing Handicap and Perceived Stress on Quality of Communication Life of Older Adults

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to identify factors influencing quality of communication life of older adults in the community.

Methods

Participants in this study were 128 older adults who registered at the community welfare center. The data were collected from September to October 2015 by using audiometer and three self-administered questionnaires including Korean Evaluation Scale for Hearing Handicap, Korean-Perceived Stress Scale, and Quality of Communication Life Scale. Mean minimal threshold of both ears was defined as 40dB and above for hearing handicap in this study. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, t-test, Pearson correlation coefficients, and hierarchical regression.

Results

According to the screening test result from audiometer measurement, 53.9% of the participants were found to have hearing impairment. The main factors influencing quality of communication life in older adults were subjective hearing handicap of social domain and perceived stress. They explained about 41% of quality of communication life.

Conclusion

This study identified that subjective hearing handicap on social domain and self perceived stress in older adults were more important factors for their quality of communication life compared to physical hearing loss. Nurses caring for older people should include strategies to increases communication skills and to decrease communication related stress.

REFERENCES

1. Statistics Korea. 2016 Statistics for elders [Internet]. Seoul: Statistics Korea;2016. [cited 2017 May 29]. Available from:. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq=356426&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=.
2. Kim JW, Kim HH. Communicative Function Scale-Geriatric version (CFS-G): reliability and validity. Journal of SpeechLan-guage & Hearing Disorders. 2009; 18(2):51–64.
3. Kang SK, Kim DY, Seck DI, Cho HJ, Choi KY. A study on the state of the Korean elderly's activities of daily living. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science. 2001; 40(1):1–14.
4. Kim JW, Kim HH. Communicative ability in normal aging: a review. Communication Sciences & Disorders. 2009; 14(4):495–513.
5. Choi HY, Kim YW, Rha DW, Kim HH. The Quality of Communication Life Scale-Korean version. Communication Sciences & Disorders. 2011; 16(3):388–96.
6. World Health Organization Division of Mental Health. WHO- QOL study protocol: the development of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment instruments. Geneva: World Health Organization;1993.
7. Baylor CR, Yorkston KM, Eadie TL. The consequences of spas-modic dysphonia on communication-related quality of life: a qualitative study of the insider's experiences. Journal of Communication Disorders. 2005; 38(5):395–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2005.03.003.
crossref
8. Kim TG, Jung EH. Development of Communication-related Quality of Life Scale for children with hearing impairment. Korean Journal of Special Education. 2014; 49(1):49–70.
9. Huang Q, Tang J. Age-related hearing loss or presbycusis. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2010; 267(8):1179–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-010-1270-7.
crossref
10. 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 and Hearing. 2009; 30(5):576–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ac127a.
11. Ghazavi Z, Feshangchi S, Alavi M, Keshvari M. Effect of a family-oriented communication skills training program on depression, anxiety, and stress in older adults: a randomized clinical trial. Nursing and Midwifery Studies. 2016; 5(1):e28550. https://doi.org/10.17795/nmsjournal28550.
crossref
12. Chae SW. A review of age-related hearing loss. Journal of the Korean Medical Association. 2011; 54(9):908–9. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.9.908.
crossref
13. Paul DR, Frattali CM, Holland AL, Thompson CK, Caperton CJ, Slater SC, editors. Quality of communication life scale. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association;2004.
14. Yorkston KM, Bourgeois MS, Baylor CR. Communication and aging. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 2010; 21(2):309–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2009.12.011.
crossref
15. Kang CW, Lee JW. A study on the life satisfaction to improve the quality of life of the elderly with hearing impairment. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorder. 2006; 15(2):75–91.
16. Hwang BR, Kang JH. A qualitative study on communication between elders living with dementia and their family caregivers and their quality of life. Korean Journal of Family Welfare. 2015; 20(1):27–49. https://doi.org/10.13049/kfwa.2015.20.1.27.
crossref
17. Lim HW, Chae SW. The current state of age-related hearing loss in South Korea. Journal of the Korean Medical Association. 2011; 54(9):910–7. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.9.910.
crossref
18. Kim KS. Standardization of pure tone audiometry [Internet]. Seoul: Korean National Environmental Technology Information Center;2007. [cited 2017 June 21]. Available from:. http://www3.konetic.or.kr/main/report/REPORT_VIEW.asp?PARENT_NUM=917&MENU1=4321&MENU2=4223.
19. Ku HL, Kim JS. The development of the Korean Evaluation Scale for Hearing Handicap (KESHH) for the heriatric hearing loss. Journal of the Korean Gerontological Society. 2010; 30(3):973–92.
20. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983; 24(4):385–96.
crossref
21. Lee JH, Shin CM, Ko YH, Lim JH, Joe SH, Kim SH, et al. The reliability and validity studies of the Korean version of the Perceived Stress Scale. Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine. 2012; 20(2):127–34.
22. Gopinath B, Schneider J, Hickson L, McMahon CM, Burlutsky G, Leeder SR, et al. Hearing handicap, rather than measured hearing impairment, predicts poorer quality of life over 10 years in older adults. Maturitas. 2012; 72(2):146–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.03.010.
crossref
23. Lazarus RS, Folkman S, editors. Stress: appraisal and coping. New York: Springer;Publishing Company;. 1984.
24. Chon KK, Kim DY. Emotional stress and physical health. Communication Disorder. 2000; 23(1):347–70.
25. Jo YD, Yun EG. The impact of interpersonal empowerment on the depression and life satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 2010; 51:57–80.
26. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Non-dahl DM. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist. 2003; 43(5):661–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/43.5.661.
crossref
27. Jeong SY, Im KW, Kim SS. Comparison of the quality of communication life between the physically disabled, the hearing impaired and without disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2013; 17(2):279–97.
28. Cha BK. Perceived stress, pain self-efficacy and depression according to types of adjustment to chronic pain in elders. Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing. 2012; 14(3):242–52.
29. Korten NC, Comijs HC, Penninx BW, Deeg DJ. Perceived stress and cognitive function in older adults: which aspect of perceived stress is important? International Journal of Geriatric Psy-chiatry. 2017; 32(4):439–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4486.
crossref

Table 1.
General Characteristics of Study Participants (N=128)
Characteristics Categories n (%)
Age (year) ≤75 35 (27.3)
>75 93 (72.7)
Gender Male 69 (53.9)
Female 59 (46.1)
Spouse None 81 (63.3)
Present 47 (36.7)
Living with family No 92 (71.9)
Yes 36 (28.1)
Religion No 33 (25.8)
Yes 95 (74.2)
Education level completed < Junior high school 99 (77.3)
≥ Junior high school 29 (22.7)
Comorbidity None 25 (19.5)
Yes 103 (80.5)
Economic status < Moderate 55 (43.0)
≥ Moderate 73 (57.0)
Presbycusis No 59 (46.1)
Yes 69 (53.9)
Table 2.
Degree of Subjective Hearing Handicap, Perceived Stress, and Quality of Communication Life of the Participants (N=128)
Variables Components M± SD
Subjective hearing handicap Social 16.89±7.10
Psycho-emotional 13.30±6.43
Interpersonal 16.39±6.33
Perception of hearing aids 16.34±5.54
Total 62.94±21.57
Perceived stress 15.95±5.76

Quality of communication life 72.53±13.96

Table 3.
Subjective Hearing Handicap, Perceived Stress and Quality of Communication Life according to Characteristics of Participants (N=128)
Characteristics Categories Subjective hearing handicap Perceived stress Quality of communication life
M± SD t (p) M± SD t (p) M± SD t (p)
Age (year) ≤75 64.80±23.68 0.59 17.77±6.47 2.22 75.46±13.31 1.46
>75 62.25±20.82 (.553) 15.27±5.35 (.028) 71.43±14.11 (.147)
Gender Male 57.42±19.27 -3.21 14.09±6.04 -4.31 75.59±12.80 2.75
Female 69.40±22.46 (.002) 18.14±4.57 (<.001) 68.95±14.51 (.007)
Spouse None 62.17±21.36 -0.53 15.42±6.40 -1.52 71.51±13.92 -1.09
Present 64.27±22.08 (.597) 16.87±4.36 (.131) 74.30±14.00 (.277)
Living with family No 63.05±21.62 0.09 16.03±5.57 0.25 71.38±13.69 -1.49
Yes 62.66±21.74 (.928) 15.75±6.29 (.804) 75.47±14.41 (.137)
Religion No 59.90±19.05 0.93 15.73±6.00 0.26 71.70±17.03 0.39
Yes 64.00±22.37 (.350) 16.03±5.70 (.795) 72.82±12.81 (.692)
Education level completed < Junior high school 62.32±21.89 -0.60 15.52±6.19 -2.09 72.12±13.59 -0.61
≥ Junior high school 65.06±20.65 (.549) 17.45±3.66 (.039) 73.93±15.34 (.541)
Comorbidity None 60.52±17.07 0.74 18.04±5.53 -2.04 71.24±17.35 0.51
Yes 63.53±22.56 (.463) 15.45±5.72 (.043) 72.84±13.09 (.608)
Economic status < Moderate 62.83±22.66 -0.05 16.35±5.81 0.67 72.47±15.88 -0.04
≥ Moderate 63.02±20.87 (.961) 15.66±5.74 (.506) 72.58±12.44 (.967)
Presbycusis No 46.05±12.94 -12.10 13.05±4.80 -5.93 78.78±11.36 5.12
Yes 77.39±16.33 (<.001) 18.43±5.36 (<.001) 67.19±13.82 (<.001)
Table 4.
Correlation among Subjective Hearing Handicap, Perceived Stress and Quality of Communication Life (N=128)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
1. Social 1
2. Psycho-emotional .85 (<.001) 1
3. Interpersonal .89 (<.001) .85 (<.001) 1
4. Perception of hearing aids .30 (.001) .33 (<.001) .42 (<.001) 1
5. Perceived stress .59 (<.001) .57 (<.001) .61 (<.001) .26 (.004) 1
6. Quality of communication life -.63 (<.001) -.50 (<.001) -.56 (<.001) -.14 (.114) -.50 (<.001) 1
Table 5.
Influencing Factors on Quality of Communication Life (N=128)
Variables Quality of communication life
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
β SE p β SE p β SE p
Gender -.14 2.32 .094 -.04 2.11 .577 -.01 2.11 .963
Presbycusis -.38 2.32 <.001 .12 2.99 .257 .13 2.93 .227
Subjective hearing handicap
 Social -.77 0.36 <.001 -.73 0.35 <.001
 Psycho-emotional .13 0.31 .360 .17 0.31 .247
 Interpersonal -.07 0.39 .695 -.02 0.39 .904
 Perception of hearing aids .03 0.20 .727 .04 0.20 .602
Perceived stress -.22 0.21 .014
F=14.75, p<.001, F=14.18, p<.001, F=13.56, p<.001,
Adjusted R2=.18 Adjusted R2=.38 Adjusted R2=.41
TOOLS
Similar articles