Hearing Screening in Older Adults in Primary Care Clinics: How the Effects of Setting and Provider Encouragement Differ by Patient Sex and Race.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have examined how patient sex or race influence hearing healthcare, which was our study purpose. DESIGN: We performed a secondary analysis using data from a pragmatic clinical trial that examined the effect of provider encouragement (yes/no) or setting (at-home/clinic) for older adults to follow through with routine hearing screening in primary care and the hearing healthcare pathway. Three protocols were compared: at-home screening without provider encouragement, at-home screening with provider encouragement, and in-clinic screening with provider encouragement. RESULTS: Poisson regression (n = 627) showed few differences by patient sex but showed that Black patients in the at-home protocols were less likely to schedule or complete a formal diagnostic evaluation after a failed screening compared with Black patients in the clinic setting and White patients in all groups. Black patients, regardless of provider encouragement, were less likely to schedule or complete a diagnostic evaluation compared with White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that in-clinic screenings may increase the use of hearing healthcare for Black patients.

Development of Measures for d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stigma: Introduction to the Special Supplement on Stigma Measurement Tools.

People who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) often experience stigma and discrimination in their daily lives. Qualitative research describing their lived experiences has provided useful, in-depth insights into the pervasiveness of stigma. Quantitative measures could facilitate further investigation of the scope of this phenomenon. Thus, under the auspices of the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss, we developed and preliminarily validated survey measures of different types of stigma related to d/Deafness and hearing loss in the United States (a high-income country) and Ghana (a lower-middle income country). In this introductory article, we first present working definitions of the different types of stigma; an overview of what is known about stigma in the context of hearing loss; and the motivation underlying the development of measures that capture different types of stigma from the perspectives of different key groups. We then describe the mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach used to develop the stigma measures for several key groups: people who are d/DHH, parents of children who are d/DHH, care partners of people who are d/DHH, healthcare providers, and the general population. The subsequent manuscripts in this special supplement of Ear and Hearing describe the psychometric validation of the various stigma scales developed using these methods.

Preliminary Validation of Hearing Device-Related Stigma Measures in Four United States Populations.

OBJECTIVES: Although hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists. In this article, we describe the preliminary validation of four distinct but related scales measuring hearing device-related stigma in different populations, including people who use hearing devices and those close to them. DESIGN: We preliminarily validated four measures for quantifying hearing device-related stigma in different populations that were previously developed and refined through a literature review, Delphi interviews, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. We preliminarily validated these measures through self-administered online surveys in a convenience sample in the United States. Among participants who use a hearing device and who either (a) self-identified as being d/DHH before they developed language (lifelong; n = 78) or (b) those who self-identified as having acquired a d/DHH identity after they developed language (acquired n = 71), we validated an anticipated hearing device-related stigma scale (d/DHHS-LE-HDA). We validated three scales that measure perceived hearing device-related stigma observed by parents of children who are d/DHH and who use a hearing device (n = 79) (d/DHHS-P-HDPO), care partners of adults who are d/DHH and use a hearing device (n = 108) (d/DHHS-CP-HDPO), and health care providers (n = 203) (d/DHHS-HCP-HDSH). Exploratory factor analysis assessed the reliability of each measure. RESULTS: Each of the four scales loaded onto one factor. Factor loadings for the eight-item scale measuring anticipated hearing device-related stigma among the two populations with lived experience ranged from 0.635 to 0.910, with an ordinal α of 0.93 in the lifelong d/DHH participants and 0.94 among the acquired d/DHH participants. The six-item scale of perceived stigma observed by parents had item loadings from 0.630 to 0.920 (α = 0.91). The nine-item scale of hearing device-related stigma observed by care partners had item loadings from 0.554 to 0.922 (α = 0.95). The eight-item scale of hearing device-related stigma reported by health care providers had item loadings from 0.647 to 0.941 (α = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary validation results show that the four stigma measures perform well in their respective populations. The anticipated stigma scale performed similarly well for both lifelong d/DHH and acquired d/DHH, which suggests that it could perform well in different contexts. Future research should further validate the scales described here as well as measure hearing device-related stigma in different populations-including people who live in different geographic regions and people using different kinds of hearing devices-and evaluate the success of interventions developed to reduce hearing device-related stigma.

Research Agenda and Applications for Preliminarily Validated Measures of d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stigma.

In this special supplement of Ear and Hearing, we have presented preliminarily validated measures for stigma related to being d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) in the United States and Ghana. In this concluding article, we suggest avenues for the future refinement and use of these measures. First, the measures should be further validated. Second, they should be used to assess the current state of d/DHH stigma and the importance of different kinds of stigma in different populations, which should in turn drive the development of interventions to reduce d/DHH stigma. Third, these measures can assist in evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of those interventions. The evidence from this work can then inform investment cases and cost-of-condition studies, which will support advocacy efforts and policy development for reducing stigma and improving the lives of people who are d/DHH.

Development and Preliminary Validation of Scales to Measure Enacted, Perceived, and Experienced Hearing Loss Stigma in Health Care Settings.

OBJECTIVES: Qualitative evidence suggests that stigma experienced by people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) can reduce willingness to engage with health services. Quantitative evidence remains lacking, however, about how health care providers (HCPs) perceive societal stigma toward people who are d/DHH, how HCPs might enact d/DHH stigma within provider-patient encounters, and what patients who are d/DHH share with providers about those patients' perceptions and experiences of stigma. Such quantitative evidence would allow HCPs to understand if and how stigma influences hearing health decisions made by people who are d/DHH. It could also shape practices to reduce d/DHH stigma within clinical encounters and guide providers in considering stigma as a driving force in their patients' hearing health care decisions. Building that evidence base requires validated quantitative measures. In response, the present study initiated an iterative process toward developing and preliminarily validating HCP self-report measures for different forms of d/DHH stigma. These measures draw upon HCPs' own perspectives, as well as their reports of secondhand information about stigma shared during clinical conversations. We developed and preliminary validated four measures: (1) provider-perceived stigma (HCPs' perceptions of the existence of negative attitudes and stereotypes toward d/DHH individuals in society), (2) provider-enacted stigma (self-reported subtle or indirect acts of stigma HCPs might commit during clinical encounters), (3) secondhand patient-experienced stigma (external acts of stigma reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters), and (4) secondhand patient-perceived stigma (perceptions of negative attitudes and stereotypes reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters). DESIGN: Scale items were extracted from a comprehensive literature review of stigma measures. Question stems and individual items were adapted for HCPs, cognitively tested on 5 HCPs, and pretested with 30 HCPs. The 4 scales were then validated on a sample of primary care providers and hearing care specialists (N = 204) recruited through an online survey. All data were collected in the United States. RESULTS: We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the four proposed d/DHH stigma HCP stigma scales. Scale items loaded satisfactorily with ordinal alphas ranging between 0.854 and 0.944. CONCLUSIONS: The four measures developed and preliminarily validated in this study can provide opportunities for HCPs to develop a more nuanced understanding of stigma experienced and perceived by their patients who are d/DHH and how that stigma manifests across social contexts, including health care settings. Further, the ability to assess forms of d/DHH stigma in clinical encounters, as well as their association with patient disengagement and resistance to advanced hearing care, could lead to innovative stigma-reduction interventions. Such interventions could then be evaluated using the measures from this article and then applied to clinical practice. We envision these measures being further refined, adapted, and tested for a variety of health care contexts, including primary care settings where hearing difficulties may first be identified and in hearing health care settings where audiologic rehabilitation is initiated.

Routine Hearing Screening for Older Adults in Primary Care: Insights of Patients and Clinic Personnel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hearing loss frequently goes undiagnosed and untreated, with serious sequelae. Hearing screening facilitates diagnosis and treatment but is not routinely conducted in primary care. This study addresses the attitudes and insights of patients and primary care clinic personnel relative to the routinization of hearing screening in primary care for older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data presented are from the qualitative portion of a larger study. The main study compared screening completion for 3 approaches to coordinating telephone-based hearing screening with primary care-1 offering hearing screening within the primary care encounter and 2 providing information for at-home screening ( 1 with and 1 without provider encouragement). Focus groups/interviews were conducted with personnel (n = 38) at the 6 participating clinics, patients who completed screening and were referred for diagnosis (n = 14), and patients who did not complete screening (n = 10). Analysis used the general inductive approach. RESULTS: Most patients had unaddressed hearing concerns prior to the study. Negative attitudes toward hearing loss/treatment were common, and experiences of family and friends influenced attitudes, but lack of urgency was the primary barrier to screening completion. Respondents favored routine primary care-based hearing screening for older adults, but clinic personnel noted challenges of time, space, workflow, and reimbursement. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings favor greater routinization of hearing screening in primary care. Routinization will be enhanced by improved reimbursement for screening and follow-up; specialist engagement with primary care and the public (including leveraging older adults' social networks); and further research on specific integration options.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Hearing Screening in Primary Care Clinics: Effect of Setting and Provider Encouragement.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no). DESIGN: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider. RESULTS: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

Translabyrinthine Craniotomy Is Associated with Higher Risk of Asymptomatic Dural Venous Sinus Thrombosis in Vestibular Schwannoma Resection.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize the incidence, risk factors, and patient outcomes of dural venous sinus thrombosis identified on postoperative imaging after retrosigmoid or translabyrinthine craniotomy for vestibular schwannoma resection. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients 19 to 82 years of age with vestibular schwannomas, 58% female. INTERVENTIONS: Retrosigmoid or translabyrinthine craniotomy with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance venography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Association between operative approach, age, sex, body mass index, tumor size, dominant sinus, operative time, laterality, and perioperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks with rate of thrombosis. RESULTS: Translabyrinthine craniotomy was associated with the highest relative risk of thrombosis (odds ratios [OR] = 19.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75-224, p = 0.007), followed by male sex (OR = 5.53, 95% CI = 1.63-18.8, p = 0.035). Other patient and demographic risk factors were not associated with increased rates of dural venous thrombosis, nor was there an association with postoperative CSF leak. 81% (25/31) of thrombi had resolved within 3 years of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Translabyrinthine approach and male sex most strongly predicted postoperative dural venous thrombosis after postauricular craniotomy for vestibular schwannoma resection. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GAP AND EDUCATIONAL NEED: Better understanding of risk factors and management of dural venous thrombosis after vestibular schwannoma surgery. LEARNING OBJECTIVE: Characterize clinically significant risk factors for dural venous thrombosis in vestibular schwannoma surgery. DESIRED RESULT: Identification of patient and operative risk factors for dural venous thrombosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. INDICATE IRB OR IACUC: Exempt.

Sponsorship in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: A Pathway to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

Importance: Sponsorship, distinct from mentorship or coaching, involves advancing the careers of individuals by nominating them for roles, increasing the visibility of their work, or facilitating opportunities. Sponsorship can open doors and enhance diversity; however, achieving desirable outcomes requires equitable approaches to cultivating potential in sponsees and promoting their success. The evidence on equitable sponsorship practices has not been critically examined, and this special communication reviews the literature, highlighting best practices. Observations: Sponsorship addresses an unmet need for supporting individuals who have historically been afforded fewer, less visible, or less effective opportunities for upward career mobility. Barriers to equitable sponsorship include the paucity of sponsors of underrepresented identity; smaller and underdeveloped networks among these sponsors; lack of transparent, intentional sponsorship processes; and structural inequities that are associated with recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse individuals. Strategies to enhance equitable sponsorship are cross-functional, building on foundational principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion; patient safety and quality improvement; and insights from education and business. Equity, diversity, and inclusion principles inform training on implicit bias, cross-cultural communication, and intersectional mentoring. Practices inspired by patient safety and quality improvement emphasize continuously improving outreach to diverse candidates. Education and business insights emphasize minimizing cognitive errors, appreciating the bidirectional character of interactions, and ensuring that individuals are prepared for and supported in new roles. Collectively, these principles provide a framework for sponsorship. Persistent knowledge gaps are associated with timing, resources, and systems for sponsorship. Conclusions and Relevance: The nascent literature on sponsorship is limited but draws on best practices from various disciplines and has potential to promote diversity within the profession. Strategies include developing systematic approaches, providing effective training, and supporting a culture of sponsorship. Future research is needed to define best practices for identifying sponsees, cultivating sponsors, tracking outcomes, and fostering longitudinal practices that are sustainable at local, regional, and national levels.

Potential Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in the US.

Importance: Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are now available in the US; however, their clinical and economic outcomes are unknown. Objective: To project the clinical and economic outcomes of traditional hearing aid provision compared with OTC hearing aid provision. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis used a previously validated decision model of hearing loss (HL) to simulate US adults aged 40 years and older across their lifetime in US primary care offices who experienced yearly probabilities of acquiring HL (0.1%-10.4%), worsening of their HL, and traditional hearing aid uptake (0.5%-8.1%/y at a fixed uptake cost of $3690) and utility benefits (0.11 additional utils/y). For OTC hearing aid provision, persons with perceived mild to moderate HL experienced increased OTC hearing aid uptake (1%-16%/y) based on estimates of time to first HL diagnosis. In the base case, OTC hearing aid utility benefits ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 additional utils/y (45%-100% of traditional hearing aids), and costs were $200 to $1400 (5%-38% of traditional hearing aids). Distributions were assigned to parameters to conduct probabilistic uncertainty analysis. Intervention: Provision of OTC hearing aids, at increased uptake rates, across a range of effectiveness and costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/y) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Traditional hearing aid provision resulted in 18.162 QALYs, compared with 18.162 to 18.186 for OTC hearing aids varying with OTC hearing aid utility benefit (45%-100% that of traditional hearing aids). Provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater lifetime discounted costs by $70 to $200 along with OTC device cost ($200-$1000/pair; 5%-38% traditional hearing aid cost) due to increased hearing aid uptake. Provision of OTC hearing aids was considered cost-effective (ICER<$100 000/QALY) if the OTC utility benefit was 0.06 or greater (55% of the traditional hearing aid effectiveness). In probabilistic uncertainty analysis, OTC hearing aid provision was cost-effective in 53% of simulations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, provision of OTC hearing aids was associated with greater uptake of hearing intervention and was cost-effective over a range of prices so long as OTC hearing aids were greater than 55% as beneficial to patient quality of life as traditional hearing aids.

Prognosis of Acute Low-Tone Hearing Loss Without Vertigo: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Despite its relatively high prevalence, our understanding of the natural clinical course of acute low-tone hearing loss (ALHL) without vertigo remains incomplete. The purpose of this study is to summarize the findings of studies that evaluated recovery from hearing loss (HL), recurrence and/or fluctuation of HL, and progression to Meniere's Disease (MD) of patients presenting with ALHL without vertigo. METHODS: A scoping review of the English literature was performed. On May 14, 2020 and July 6, 2022, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched to identify articles related to the prognosis of ALHL. To be included, articles had to present outcomes that were clearly distinguishable for patients with ALHL without vertigo. Two reviewers evaluated articles for inclusion and extracted data. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. There was extensive heterogeneity between studies in regard to defining ALHL, treatment methods, and time of follow-up. Most of the cohorts (39 out of 40) reported partial or complete recovery of hearing in the majority (>50%) of patients, although reports of recurrence were relatively common. Progression to MD was infrequently reported. Shorter time from onset of symptoms to treatment predicted better hearing outcomes in 6 of 8 studies. CONCLUSION: The literature suggests that although the majority of patients with ALHL experience hearing improvement, recurrence and/or fluctuation are common, and progression to MD occurs in a minority of patients. Additional trials utilizing standardized inclusion and outcome criteria are needed to determine the ideal treatment for ALHL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 133:2457-2469, 2023.

Model-Projected Cost-Effectiveness of Adult Hearing Screening in the USA.

BACKGROUND: While 60% of older adults have hearing loss (HL), the majority have never had their hearing tested. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate long-term clinical and economic effects of alternative adult hearing screening schedules in the USA. DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulating Current Detection (CD) and linkage of persons with HL to hearing healthcare, compared to alternative screening schedules varying by age at first screen (45 to 75 years) and screening frequency (every 1 or 5 years). Simulated persons experience yearly age- and sex-specific probabilities of acquiring HL, and subsequent hearing aid uptake (0.5-8%/year) and discontinuation (13-4%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated according to hearing level and treatment status. Costs from a health system perspective include screening ($30-120; 2020 USD), HL diagnosis ($300), and hearing aid devices ($3690 year 1, $910/subsequent year). Data sources were published estimates from NHANES and clinical trials of adult hearing screening. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-year-old persons in US primary care across their lifetime. INTERVENTION: Alternative screening schedules that increase baseline probabilities of hearing aid uptake (base-case 1.62-fold; range 1.05-2.25-fold). MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime undiscounted and discounted (3%/year) costs and QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). KEY RESULTS: CD resulted in 1.20 average person-years of hearing aid use compared to 1.27-1.68 with the screening schedules. Lifetime total per-person undiscounted costs were $3300 for CD and ranged from $3630 for 5-yearly screening beginning at age 75 to $6490 for yearly screening beginning at age 45. In cost-effectiveness analysis, yearly screening beginning at ages 75, 65, and 55 years had ICERs of $39,100/QALY, $48,900/QALY, and $96,900/QALY, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variations in hearing aid utility benefit and screening effectiveness. LIMITATION: Input uncertainty around screening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We project that yearly hearing screening beginning at age 55+ is cost-effective by US standards.

Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule.

Importance: Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults. Objective: To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting. Exposures: Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective. Results: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.

How the Past Shapes the Future and What to Do About It: A Discussion at CI 2021 Virtual With Panelists: Teresa Caraway, Ph.D., C.C.C.-S.L.P.; Cliff Megerian, M.D.; Debara Tucci, M.D., M.S., M.B.A.; Peter Thomas, J.D.; Jason Wigand, Au.D.

ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the highlights of a lively discussion between leaders in the cochlear implant (CI) field who also bring significant leadership experience at the practice and health system levels, as well as policy and research perspectives. The discussion revealed several areas in which established patterns of practice should be reconsidered to facilitate wider acceptance of the CI as part of an integrated continuum of hearing healthcare. The importance of continued innovation to advance outcomes, lower cost, and increase access was emphasized. Trends in healthcare funding, which increasingly reward quality at lower cost, will also challenge longstanding assumptions that have influenced program design. Proactive efforts that pursue consistent value in the episode of surgical care while establishing innovative delivery models for audiological and rehabilitation services are the best hope for a future of equitable access and expanding impact.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office. METHODS: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology and the Communication Sciences.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI) is a burgeoning field in otolaryngology and the communication sciences. A virtual symposium on the topic was convened from Duke University on October 26, 2020, and was attended by more than 170 participants worldwide. This review presents summaries of all but one of the talks presented during the symposium; recordings of all the talks, along with the discussions for the talks, are available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktfewrXvEFg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gQ5qX2v3rg . Each of the summaries is about 2500 words in length and each summary includes two figures. This level of detail far exceeds the brief summaries presented in traditional reviews and thus provides a more-informed glimpse into the power and diversity of current AI applications in otolaryngology and the communication sciences and how to harness that power for future applications.

Development and validation of DeciBHAL-US: A novel microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects over 50% of people in the US across their lifespan and there is a lack of decision modeling frameworks to inform optimal hearing healthcare delivery. Our objective was to develop and validate a microsimulation model of hearing loss across the lifespan in the US. METHODS: We collaborated with the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss to outline model structure, identify input data sources, and calibrate/validate DeciBHAL-US (Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan). We populated the model with literature-based estimates and validated the conceptual model with key informants. We validated key model endpoints to the published literature, including: 1) natural history of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), 2) natural history of conductive hearing loss (CHL), and 3) the hearing loss cascade of care. We reported the coefficient of variance root mean square error (CV-RMSE), considering values ≤15% to indicate adequate fit. FINDINGS: For SNHL prevalence, the CV-RMSE for model projected male and female age-specific prevalence compared to sex-adjusted National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data was 4.9 and 5.7%, respectively. Incorporating literature-based age-related decline in SNHL, we validated mean four-frequency average hearing loss in the better ear (dB) among all persons to longitudinal data (CV-RMSE=11.3%). We validated the age-stratified prevalence of CHL to adjusted NHANES data (CV-RMSE=10.9%). We incorporated age- and severity-stratified time to first hearing aid (HA) use data and HA discontinuation data (adjusted for time-period of use) and validated to NHANES estimates on the prevalence of adult HA use (CV-RMSE=10.3%). INTERPRETATION: Our results indicate adequate model fit to internal and external validation data. Future incorporation of cost and severity-stratified utility data will allow for cost-effectiveness analysis of US hearing healthcare interventions across the lifespan. Further research might expand the modeling framework to international settings. FUNDING: This study was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Institute on Aging (3UL1-TR002553-03S3 and F30 DC019846).

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE's track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.

The Association Between Hearing Loss and Surgical Complications in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate whether older patients with hearing loss who underwent surgery were at greater risk of postsurgical complications, increased inpatient length-of-stay (LOS), and hospital readmission. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving surgery at a tertiary medical center. Utilizing electronic health record data from two merged datasets, we identified patients 65 years and older, undergoing major surgery between January 1, 2014 and January 31, 2017, and who had audiometric evaluation before surgery. Patients were classified as having either normal hearing or hearing loss based on pure-tone average in the better ear. A Generalized Estimating Equations approach was used to fit multivariable regression models for outcome variables of interest. RESULTS: Of patients ≥65 years undergoing major surgery in our time frame, a total of 742 surgical procedures were performed on 621 patients with available audiometric data. After adjusting for age, sex, race, and comorbidities, hearing loss was associated with an increase in the odds of developing postoperative complications. Every 10 dB increase in hearing loss was associated with a 14% increase in the odds of developing a postoperative complication (odds ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.29, p = 0.031). Hearing loss was not significantly associated with increased hospital LOS, 30-day readmission, or 90-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing loss was significantly associated with developing postoperative complications in older adults undergoing major surgery. Screening for hearing impairment may be a useful addition to the preoperative assessment and perioperative management of older patients undergoing surgery.