BMC Public Health

Table 2 Mediation of the cohort difference in low frequency hearing thresholds (0.5, 1 and 2 kHz)

From: Explaining better hearing in Norway: a comparison of two cohorts 20 years apart - the HUNT study

	Cohort effect^a		Natural indirect effect
	Estimate (dB)	95% CI	Estimate (dB)	95% CI	Mediated proportion
All:
Total	−2.79	− 2.64, − 2.94	− 0.76^b	− 0.85, − 0.68	0.27
Education			−0.28^c	− 0.35, − 0.21	0.10
Recurrent ear infections			− 0.18^c	−0.21, − 0.15	0.07
Occupational noise			−0.14^e	− 0.18, − 0.10	0.05
Smoking			−0.14^e	−0.21, − 0.08	0.05
Women:
Total	−2.65	−2.45, − 2.84	−0.70^b	− 0.81, − 0.59	0.26
Education			−0.38^c	−0.48, − 0.27	0.14
Recurrent ear infections			−0.20^c	−0.25, − 0.16	0.08
Occupational noise			−0.04^d	−0.05, 0.02	0.01
Smoking			−0.05^d	−0.09, − 0.02	0.02
Men:
Total	−3.01	−2.78, −3.23	−0.91^b	−1.06, − 0.77	0.30
Education			−0.22^c	−0.31, − 0.13	0.09
Recurrent ear infections			−0.17^c	−0.21, − 0.12	0.06
Occupational noise			−0.27^e	−0.34, − 0.19	0.09
Smoking			−0.21^e	− 0.33, − 0.08	0.07

All models were adjusted for age and sex
^a Difference in hearing thresholds between HUNT4 (2017–2018) and HUNT2 (1996–1998)
^b Estimated by fitting natural effect models in the R-package medflex using the imputation method including all exposure-mediation interaction terms
^c Estimated with gformula in Stata
^d Estimated with gformula in Stata with the assumption of no exposure mediation interaction as proposed by Robins and Greenland [32]
^e Estimated with gformula in Stata with the assumption of no exposure intermediate interaction together with only linear effects of the intermediate variable as proposed by Petersen et al. [33]

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com