BMC Public Health

Table 3 Mediation of the cohort difference in high frequency hearing thresholds (3, 4 and 6 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	−2.97	− 2.76, − 3.18	−0.82^b	− 0.94, − 0.70	0.28
Education			−0.12^c	−0.22, − 0.02	0.04
Recurrent ear infections			−0.20^c	−0.23, − 0.16	0.07
Occupational noise			−0.25^e	−0.30, − 0.20	0.08
Smoking			−0.14^e	−0.24, − 0.04	0.05
Women:
Total	−1.25	−1.00, − 1.50	−0.68^b	− 0.82, − 0.53	0.54
Education			−0.30^c	−0.44, − 0.16	0.24
Recurrent ear infections			−0.21^c	−0.26, − 0.16	0.17
Occupational noise			−0.06^d	−0.08, − 0.04	0.05
Smoking			−0.08^d	−0.13, − 0.04	0.07
Men:
Total	−5.20	−4.85, −5.55	−1.39^b	−1.61, − 1.18	0.27
Education			−0.35^c	−0.47, − 0.22	0.07
Recurrent ear infections			−0.17^c	−0.23, − 0.11	0.03
Occupational noise			−0.56^e	−0.71, − 0.42	0.11
Smoking			−0.17^e	−0.37, 0.03	0.03

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