Acesso a serviço de saúde e reabilitação auditiva de adultos e idosos durante o período inicial da pandemia COVID-19 no Brasil / Access to health service and hearing rehabilitation for adult and older adults during the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil / Acceso a servicios de salud yrehabilitación auditiva para adultos y ancianos durante el período inicial de la pandemia COVID-19 en Brasil

Introdução: A perda auditiva é uma deficiência comum na população mundial e contribui para dificuldade na comunicação verbal e redução da qualidade de vida, evidenciando a importância da identificação precoce, reabilitação e acompanhamento audiológico dessa deficiência para mitigar suas consequências. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, as medidas restritivas diminuíram a capacidade de atendimento dos serviços de saúde auditiva e dificultaram a busca de auxílio para resolver problemas relacionados à adaptação aos dispositivos eletrônicos de amplificação sonora (DAES), sendo uma barreira no processo de reabilitação da perda auditiva. Objetivo: Caracterizar os usuários de DEAS e o processo inicial de reabilitação auditiva de adultos e idosos e verificar fatores associados ao retorno para a consulta de monitoramento auditivo durante o período inicial da pandemia da COVID-19.Métodos: Estudo observacional transversal com usuários adultos e idosos de um serviço ambulatorial de saúde auditiva com retorno para consulta de monitoramento auditivo agendada no período inicial da implementação das medidas restritivas da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. Resultados: A maioria dos participantes conseguiu retornou para a consulta de monitoramento auditivo, sendo eles em sua maioria idosos, do sexo feminino e vacinados contra a COVID-19. Houve maior prevalência de adaptação adequada aos DAES. Não houve associação estatística entre as variáveis relacionadas à adaptação aos DAES, COVID-19 e saúde mental e o retorno à consulta de monitoramento auditivo. Conclusão: Os fatores relacionados à adaptação aos DAES, à COVID-19 ou à saúde mental não influenciaram o retorno à consulta de monitoramento auditivo na presente pesquisa. (AU)

Introduction: Hearing loss is a common disability in the world population and contributes to difficulty in verbal communication and reduced quality of life, highlighting the importance of early identification, rehabilitation and audiological monitoring of this disability to mitigate its consequences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictive measures reduced the service capacity of hearing health services and made it difficult to seek help to solve problems related to adaptation to personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), being a barrier in the rehabilitation process of hearing loss. Aim: To characterize PSAPs users and the initial hearing rehabilitation process for adults and elderly people and verify the factors associated with the return to hearing monitoring consultations in the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study with adults and elderly people: elderly users of an outpatient hearing health service who return for a scheduled hearing monitoring consultation in the initial period of the implementation of restrictive measures of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Results: Most participants were able to return to the hearing monitoring clinic, the majority of whom were elderly, female and vaccinated against COVID-19. There was a higher prevalence of adequate adaptation to the PSAPs. There was no statistical association between variables related to adaptation to PSAPs, COVID-19 and mental health and return to hearing monitoring consultation. Conclusion: Factors related to adaptation to PSAPs, COVID-19 or mental health did not influence the return to hearing monitoring consultation in the present investigation. (AU)

Introducción: La pérdida auditiva es una discapacidad común en la población mundial y contribuye a la dificultad en la comunicación verbal y a la reducción de la calidad de vida, destacando la importancia de la identificación temprana, rehabilitación y seguimiento audiológico de esta discapacidad para mitigar sus consecuencias. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19, las medidas restrictivas redujeron la capacidad de atención de los servicios de salud auditiva y dificultaron la búsqueda de ayuda para resolver problemas relacionados con la adaptación a dispositivos electrónicos de amplificación del sonido (DEAS), siendo una barrera en el proceso de rehabilitación de la pérdida auditiva. Objetivo: Caracterizar a los usuarios de DEAS y el proceso inicial de rehabilitación auditiva de adultos y ancianos y verificar los factores asociados al retorno a las consultas de monitorización auditiva en el período inicial de la pandemia COVID-19. Métodos: Estudio observacional transversal con adultos y ancianos: ancianos usuarios de un servicio ambulatorio de salud auditiva que regresan para consulta de monitorización auditiva programada en el período inicial de la implementación de medidas restrictivas de la pandemia de COVID-19 en Brasil. Resultados: La mayoría de los participantes pudieron regresar a la clínica de monitorización auditiva, la mayoría de los cuales eran ancianos, mujeres y estaban vacunados contra COVID-19. Hubo mayor prevalencia de adaptación adecuada a la DEAS. No hubo asociación estadística entre variables relacionadas con adaptación a DEAS, COVID-19 y salud mental y retorno a consulta de monitorización auditiva. Conclusión: Los factores relacionados con la adaptación a DEAS, el COVID-19 o la salud mental no influyeron en el retorno a la consulta de monitorización auditiva en la presente investigación. (AU)

Education Intervention on 'Hearing Impairment - Its Assessment and Management' among Medical Practitioners in Sikkim, India.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers must be aware of the choices in aural rehabilitation methods and assessment procedures available presently to those with hearing impairment in order to facilitate early identification and intervention and ensure quality of care to those hearing impaired individuals. The referrals from the medical fraternities for the audiological services are not uniform across India. Part of reason may be that awareness about the roles of and responsibilities of audiologist's is poor among medical practitioners. In some regions of India medical practitioners may be only grossly be aware of audiologists per se. They may not know enough to refer all individuals with hearing or balance disorders for the required audiological services. AIM: To evaluate changes in pre survey and post survey after education intervention specifically planned for medical practitioners in the state of Sikkim, India. Education intervention included awareness about hearing impairment and its assessment and management by audiologists. METHOD: A pre and post survey comparison research design with purposive convenient sampling technique was applied. Participants were medical practitioners working in geographical area of Sikkim at the time of the study. Inspection of demographic data of respondents showed that they were in their age range of 24 and 60 years and with work experience ranging 1-40 years. Participants were invited for an awareness talk which included, information about hearing loss, early identification and early intervention, tests and management of hearing loss in different age groups, need for hearing aids/cochlear implants, auditory training, and the role of an audiologist in the management of hearing loss and ways to prevent hearing loss. A pre and post awareness program responses were collected from all the participants using a customized questionnaire tool. RESULTS: Respondents exhibited, in the pre-survey questionnaire, lack of awareness in many aspects of audiology, including assessing hearing impairment, diagnosing hearing loss, and the role of an audiologist. There was an overall, statistically significant difference in the level of performance on the pre-awareness and post-awareness responses. CONCLUSION: Following an awareness campaign among the medical professionals in Sikkim, there was a considerable change in their level of awareness of hearing impairment, its assessment, and management by audiologists. The reach of the awareness campaign was significant as around 70% of subjects showed significant change in their knowledge and attitude towards hearing impairment, its management.

How Individuals Shape Their Acoustic Environment: Implications for Hearing Aid Comparison in Ecological Momentary Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: When using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to compare different hearing aid programs, it is usually assumed that for sufficiently long study durations similar situations will be experienced in both programs. However, conscious or subconscious adaptation of situations to one's hearing ability (e.g., asking a conversation partner to speak up, increasing TV volume)-which might be different across the time spent in different hearing aid programs-may challenge this assumption. In the present study, we investigated how test participants modify their acoustic environment and if these modifications depend on the hearing program. DESIGN: Twenty-nine experienced hearing aid users were provided with hearing aids containing two hearing programs differing in directionality and noise reduction (NR). The hearing programs called NR-on and NR-off changed each day automatically. Over the course of 3 weeks, participants were asked to answer a questionnaire every time they encountered an acoustic situation they modified or would have liked to modify to improve the listening situation. Objective data on sound pressure level and classification of the acoustic situation were collected from the hearing aids. At the beginning of the study participants recollected modifications of the acoustic environments they typically do when using their own hearing aids and reported on the frequency of this behavior. RESULTS: During the field trial, participants reported on average 2.3 situations per day that they modified or would have liked to modify. Modifications were usually performed quickly after the onset of the situation and significantly improved the pleasantness of the listening situation. While the number of the reported situations did not differ between the programs, modifications increasing the volume of the target signal and increasing the hearing aid volume were more frequent for the NR-on hearing program. Changes in the objective data at the time of the modification were consistent with the reported modifications. Further, the usage time as well as the distribution of the acoustic situations over the entire study period differed between the two hearing programs. CONCLUSIONS: The large improvement in pleasantness due to the modification might explain the generally positive ratings observed in EMA studies. Furthermore, the results found here suggest that caution is needed when comparing ratings of audiological attributes in EMA, because the different modification behavior across hearing programs may lead to an underestimation of hearing problems and reduced sensitivity when comparing two technologies.

A Comparison of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scores among Individuals with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

OBJECTIVES: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a cognitive screening tool that has 4 of 10 test items heavily dependent on auditory input, potentially leaving hearing-impaired (HI) individuals at a disadvantage. Previous work found that HI individuals scored lower than normal-hearing (NH) individuals on the MoCA, potentially attributed to the degraded auditory signals negatively impacting the ability to commit auditory information to memory. However, there is no research comparing how cochlear implant (CI) recipients perform on the MoCA relative to NH and HI individuals. This study aimed to (1) examine the effect of implementing three different hearing-adjusted scoring methods for a group of age-matched CI recipients and NH individuals, (2) determine if there is a difference between the two groups in overall scores and hearing-adjusted scores, and (3) compare scores across our CI and NH data to the published HI data for all scoring methods. We hypothesized that (1) scores for CI recipients would improve with implementation of the hearing-adjusted scoring methods over the original method, (2) CI recipients would score lower than NH participants for both original and adjusted scoring methods, and (3) the difference in scores between NH and CI listeners for both adjusted and unadjusted scores would be greater than that reported in the literature between NH and HI individuals due to the greater severity of hearing loss and relatively poor spectral resolution of CIs. DESIGN: A total of 94 adults with CIs and 105 adults with NH were initially enrolled. After age-matching the two groups and excluding those who self-identified as NH but failed a hearing screening, a total of 75 CI participants (mean age 61.2 y) and 74 NH participants (mean age 58.8 y) were administered the MoCA. Scores were compared between the NH and CI groups, as well as to published HI data, using the original MoCA scoring method and three alternative scoring methods that excluded various auditory-dependent test items. RESULTS: MoCA scores improved for all groups when two of the three alternative scoring methods were used, with no significant interaction between scoring method and group. Scores for CI recipients were significantly poorer than those for age-matched NH participants for all scoring methods. CI recipients scored better than the published data for HI individuals; however, the HI group was not age matched to the CI and NH groups. CONCLUSIONS: MoCA scores are only partly affected by the potentially greater cognitive processing required to interpret degraded auditory signals. Even with the removal of the auditory-dependent items, CI recipients still did not perform as well as the age-matched NH group. Importantly, removing auditory-dependent items significantly and fundamentally alters the test, thereby reducing its sensitivity. This has important limitations for administration and interpretation of the MoCA for people with hearing loss.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hearing Aids for Middle-Aged and Older Adults in China: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of hearing aid interventions to middle-aged and older adults in rural China. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community centers. PATIENTS: A total of 385 subjects 45 years and older with moderate or above hearing loss participated in the trial, of which 150 were in the treatment group and 235 in the control group. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to the treatment group prescribing with hearing aids or to the control group with no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by comparing the treatment group with the control group. RESULTS: Assuming that the average life span of hearing aids is N years, the cost of the hearing aid intervention included the annual purchase cost of 10,000/N yuan, the annual maintenance cost of 41.48 yuan. However, the intervention led to annual healthcare costs of 243.34 yuan saved. The effectiveness of wearing a hearing aid included an increase of 0.017 quality-adjusted life years. It can be calculated that if N > 6.87, the intervention is very cost-effective; if 2.52 < N < 6.87, the increased cost-effectiveness of the intervention is acceptable; if N < 2.52, the intervention is not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: In general, the average life span of hearing aids is between 3 and 7 years, so hearing aid interventions can be considered cost-effective with high probability. Our results can provide critical reference for policy makers to increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids.

Self-reported listening effort in adults with and without hearing loss: the Danish version of the Effort Assessment Scale (D-EAS).

PURPOSE: Hearing-impaired individuals experience higher levels of listening effort in challenging situations, affecting their communication in daily life. The purpose of this study was to linguistically and culturally adapt the Effort Assessment Scale (EAS) into Danish (D-EAS) and to investigate its reliability and validity in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the EAS aligns with recommendations to adapt hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Participants were 157 listeners (85 females) aged 20-86 years (Mage = 62.5, SD = 16.8), with (non-hearing aid and hearing aid users) and without hearing loss. RESULTS: Reliability analysis showed good internal consistency for the six items in the D-EAS (Cronbach's α= 0.93). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that D-EAS is a one-dimensional instrument. Significant differences were observed across items and overall scores between normal hearing (NH) and hearing loss groups. CONCLUSIONS: The D-EAS reliably estimates self-perception of listening effort in adults with and without hearing loss and is sensitive to the impact of hearing loss. Thus, the D-EAS can provide hearing care professionals and hearing researchers with valuable insights into people's self-perception of listening effort to help guide clinical and other rehabilitation decisions.Implications for RehabilitationThe Effort Assessment Scale (EAS) into Danish (D-EAS) is a reliable tool to estimate self-perception of listening effort in hearing-impaired adults.The D-EAS could be a helpful tool providing insights about aspects of hearing disability that is not commonly addressed with the traditional hearing assessments.The D-EAS can be incorporated in the hearing rehabilitation process as a tool for evaluating self-perception of listening effort in daily life situations.The D-EAS is easy to administer and requires a short time to answer, allowing its use by clinicians and hearing researchers in different settings.

A randomised controlled clinical trial to assess the benefits of a telecare tool delivered prior to the initial hearing assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits of the Ida Institute's Why improve my hearing? Telecare Tool used before the initial hearing assessment appointment. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind randomised clinical trial with two arms: (i) Why improve my hearing? Telecare Tool intervention, and (ii) standard care control. STUDY SAMPLE: Adults with hearing loss were recruited from two Audiology Services within the United Kingdom's publicly-funded National Health Service. Of 461 individuals assessed for eligibility, 57 were eligible to participate. RESULTS: Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-efficacy for Hearing Aids (primary outcome) scores did not differ between groups from baseline to post-assessment (Mean change [Δ]= -2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]= -6.70, 2.15, p= .307) and 10-weeks follow-up (Mean Δ= -2.69; 95% CI= -9.52, 4.15, p = .434). However, Short Form Patient Activation Measure scores significantly improved in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline to post-assessment (Mean Δ= -6.06, 95% CI= -11.31, -0.82, p = .024, ES= .61) and 10-weeks follow-up (Mean Δ= -9.87, 95% CI= -15.34, -4.40, p = .001, ES= -.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that while a patient-centred telecare intervention completed before management decisions may not improve an individual's self-efficacy to manage their hearing loss, it can lead to improvements in readiness.

Using a decision tree approach to determine hearing aid ownership in older adults.

PURPOSE: The main clinical intervention for older adults with hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. However, uptake and usage in this population have historically been reported as low. The aim of this study was to understand the hearing loss characteristics, from measured audiometric hearing loss and self-perceived hearing handicap, that contribute to the decision of hearing aid ownership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2833 adults aged 50+ years, of which 329 reported hearing aid ownership, were involved with a population-based survey with audiometric hearing assessments. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to classify hearing aid ownership from audiometric measurements and hearing disability outcomes. RESULTS: An overall accuracy of 92.5% was found for the performance of the CART analysis in predicting hearing aid ownership from hearing loss characteristics. By including hearing disability, sensitivity for predicting hearing aid ownership increased by up to 40% compared with just audiometric hearing loss measurements alone. CONCLUSIONS: A decision tree approach that considers both objectively measured hearing loss and self-perceived hearing disability, could facilitate a more tailored and personalised approach for determining hearing aid needs in the older population. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWithout intervention, older adults with hearing loss are at higher risk of cognitive decline and higher rates of depression, anxiety, social isolation.The provision of hearing aids can compensate hearing function, however, uptake and usage have been reported as low.Using a more precise cut-off from audiometric measures and self-perceived hearing disability scores could facilitate a tailored and personalised approach to screen and identify older adults for hearing aid needs.

Evaluating Equity Through the Social Determinants of Hearing Health.

Hearing loss in adults is a significant public health problem throughout the world. Undiagnosed and untreated hearing loss causes a measurable impact on health and social, occupational, and emotional well-being of those affected. In spite of a wide array of health care resources to identify and manage hearing loss, there exist vast disparities in outcomes, as well as access to and utilization of hearing healthcare. Hearing rehabilitation outcomes may vary widely among different populations and there is a pressing need to understand, in a broader sense, the factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which is defined by the World Health Organization as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age." According to Healthy People 2030, these determinants can be broken into the following domains: healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and built environment. This article defines these domains and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains, as it pertains to hearing health and healthcare. Herein, we review foundational sources on the social determinants of health and hearing-related research focused on the topic. Further consideration is given to how these factors can be evaluated in a systematic fashion and be incorporated into translational research and hearing health care.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Hybrid Audiology Service Delivery Model for Older Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide insight for the feasibility and outcomes of hybrid (combination of in-person office and Internet-based appointments) audiology services. METHOD: This pilot included two phases. First, we surveyed audiologists regarding what elements of a best-practice, in-person delivery of a hearing intervention could be delivered via Internet-based appointments. Next, we piloted the feasibility and assessed outcomes of the procedures identified. Ten first-time hearing aid users aged 70 years and older were fit with Phonak Audeo M90-312T hearing aids. Two Internet-based follow-up appointments were completed using the myPhonak app. We administered the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S), the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN), and real-ear aided responses (REARs) to determine whether participants experienced improvements on hearing-related outcomes. The Telehealth Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) and the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) were administered to gauge comfort with telehealth and satisfaction with Internet-based appointments. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that after an initial in-person appointment, nearly all follow-up hearing intervention components could be delivered remotely. We performed Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests to determine if the baseline and outcome results differed for outcomes. Baseline scores improved after 6 weeks (ps = .02 and. 005 for QuickSIN and HHIE-S) for speech-in-noise performance and self-perceived hearing difficulties. REARs from 500 to 4000 Hz measured after 6 weeks did not differ from baseline (ps = .612 and .398 for the right and left ears), suggesting no significant deviation from prescriptive targets because of remote fitting adjustments. All participants reported improvement in COSI goals after the intervention. TAQ results suggested that comfort with telehealth improved after attending Internet-based appointments (p = .005). VSQ-9 results revealed no differences in reported patient satisfaction between in-person and Internet-based appointments. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to develop a feasible hybrid audiology service delivery model for older adults. Our results enhance the evidence base for the implementation of telehealth audiology services.

Pediatric Hearing Loss Management in the COVID-19 Era: Possible Consequences and Resources for the Next Future.

Pediatric hearing loss early diagnosis and treatment have been limited by the current restrictions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The difficulty in accessing the multiple facilities required for the rehabilitative process is influencing the timing of each step of the process. Auditory hearing screening programs, etiological characterization, surgical timing, and speech therapies have all been limited in the past year. The current conditions have forced us to adopt different strategies to overcome the necessary social distancing prescriptions. Although their efficacy should be proved over time, some of these resources will be probably useful even in a nonpandemic future.

Development and Evaluation of a Language-Independent Test of Auditory Discrimination for Referrals for Cochlear Implant Candidacy Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to (1) develop a Language-independent Test of Auditory Discrimination (LIT-AD) between speech sounds so that people with hearing loss who derive limited speech perception benefits from hearing aids (HAs) may be identified for consideration of cochlear implantation and (2) examine the relationship between the scores for the new discrimination test and those of a standard sentence test for adults wearing either HAs or cochlear implants (CIs). DESIGN: The test measures the ability of the listener to correctly discriminate pairs of nonsense syllables, presented as sequential triplets in an odd-one-out format, implemented as a game-based software tool for self-administration using a tablet computer. Stage 1 included first a review of phonemic inventories in the 40 most common languages in the world to select the consonants and vowels. Second, discrimination testing of 50 users of CIs at several signal to noise ratios (SNRs) was carried out to generate psychometric functions. These were used to calculate the corrections in SNR for each consonant-pair and vowel combination required to equalize difficulty across items. Third, all items were individually equalized in difficulty and the overall difficulty set. Stage 2 involved the validation of the LIT-AD in English-speaking listeners by comparing discrimination scores with performance in a standard sentence test. Forty-one users of HAs and 40 users of CIs were assessed. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine test-retest reliability and the relationship between performance in the two tests. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and performance in the LIT-AD. The scores of the CI users were used to estimate the probability of superior performance with CIs for a non-CI user having a given LIT-AD score and duration of hearing loss. RESULTS: The LIT-AD comprises 81 pairs of vowel-consonant-vowel syllables that were equalized in difficulty to discriminate. The test can be self-administered on a tablet computer, and it takes about 10 min to complete. The software automatically scores the responses and gives an overall score and a list of confusable items as output. There was good test-retest reliability. On average, higher LIT-AD discrimination scores were associated with better sentence perception for users of HAs (r = -0.54, p <0.001) and users of CIs (r = -0.73, p <0.001). The probability of superior performance with CIs for a certain LIT-AD score was estimated, after allowing for the effect of duration of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: The LIT-AD could increase access to CIs by screening for those who obtain limited benefits from HAs to facilitate timely referrals for CI candidacy evaluation. The test results can be used to provide patients and professionals with practical information about the probability of potential benefits for speech perception from cochlear implantation. The test will need to be evaluated for speakers of languages other than English to facilitate adoption in different countries.

Experienced hearing aid users' perspectives of assessment and communication within audiology: a qualitative study using digital methods.

OBJECTIVE: To explore experienced hearing aid users' perspectives of audiological assessments and the patient-audiologist communication dynamic during clinical interactions. DESIGN: A qualitative study was implemented incorporating both an online focus group and online semi-structured interviews. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Iterative-inductive thematic analysis was carried out to identify themes related to assessment and communication within audiology practice. STUDY SAMPLES: Seven experienced hearing aid users took part in an online focus group and 14 participated in online semi-structured interviews (age range: 22 - 86 years; 9 males, 11 females). RESULTS: Themes related to assessment included the unaided and aided testing procedure and relating tests to real world hearing difficulties. Themes related to communication included the importance of deaf aware communication strategies, explanation of test results and patient centred care in audiology. CONCLUSION: To ensure hearing aid services meet the needs of the service users, we should explore user perspectives and proactively adapt service delivery. This approach should be ongoing, in response to advances in hearing aid technology. Within audiology, experienced hearing aid users' value (1) comprehensive, relatable hearing assessment, (2) deaf aware patient-audiologist communication, (3) accessible services and (4) a personalised approach to recommend suitable technology and address patient specific aspects of hearing loss.

The inaugural World Report on Hearing: From barriers to a platform for change.

The inaugural World Report on Hearing was recently published by the World Health Organisation, and outlines the burden of hearing loss, and strategies to overcome this through preventative and public health approaches. Here, we identify barriers to wide-scale adoption, including historic low prioritisation of hearing loss against other public health needs, a lack of a health workforce with relevant training, poor access to assistive technology, and individual and community-level stigma and misunderstanding. Overcoming these barriers will require multi-sector stakeholder collaboration, involving ear and hearing care professionals, patients, communities, industry and policymakers.

O uso do Sistema de Frequência Modulada por crianças e adolescentes atendidos em serviço de saúde auditiva / The use of system of Frequency Modulation by children and adolescents from a hearing health care service

RESUMO Objetivo Analisar o uso e os motivos para o não uso do Sistema de Frequência Modulada (FM) por crianças e adolescentes com perda auditiva e usuários de aparelhos de amplificação sonora individual (AASI) e/ou com implante coclear (IC). Métodos Foi aplicado um questionário em forma de entrevista, por meio de contato telefônico. As questões foram retiradas do questionário FM Listening Evaluation for Children, traduzido e adaptado para a língua portuguesa por Jacob et al. (2010) e denominado Avaliação do Sistema FM, bem como outras três perguntas elaboradas pelos pesquisadores. Resultados Foram entrevistados 87 pais/responsáveis, verificando-se que o sistema FM era utilizadopor menos da metade da amostra. Quanto à mediana de uso de horas diárias do sistema, observou-se diferença nos pacientes com FM no IC, que usavam o dispositivo por maior número de horas diárias, do que os usuários de AASI. Igualmente apresentou diferença estatística o principal motivo para onão uso, relacionado ao fato de os pacientes terem recebido novos AASI e/ou IC incompatíveis com a tecnologia obtida anteriormente. Ainda, os entrevistados gostariam que lhes fossem fornecidas melhores orientações. Conclusão a maior parte dos pacientes não utiliza o sistema FM, sendo o principal motivo o uso de novos AASI e/ou IC. Os pacientes com IC usam o FM de forma mais efetiva (diariamente).

ABSTRACT Purpose To analyze de use and reasons for not using of FM systems by children and adolescents with hearing loss and users of hearing aids (HA) and or cochlear implant (CI). Methods A questionnaire applied in the form of an a interview through telephone contact was used. The questions were removed from the questionnaire "FM Listening Evaluation for children", translated and adapted for Portuguese language by Jacob et al. (2010) and named "Avaliação do Sistema FM", and three other questions prepared by the researchers. Results 87 parents/guardians were interviewed, and it was verified that less than half of the sample used the FM system. As for the median use of the FM systems daily hours, there was a statistical difference in patients with FM in CI, Who used the device for a greater number of daily hours than hearing AID users. The main reason for non-use also presented statistical difference to the fact that patients have received new hearing aids and/or CI incompatible with previously obtained. Also, respondents would like the guidance provided improved. Conclusion Most patients did not use the FM system, the main reason being the usage of new hearing aids and/or CI. Patients with CI use FM more effectively (daily).

Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study.

BACKGROUND: Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC). METHODS: Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years. RESULTS: There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased. CONCLUSIONS: HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

Hearing Health Care Belongs to Primary Care.

Like many areas of health care, hearing loss is best managed when hearing professionals collaborate closely with physicians. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are uniquely suited to manage hearing loss because 1) patients trust their PCP; 2) PCPs have insight into the overall health and well-being of their patients; and 3) the PCP workforce is large enough to make a meaningful impact. Accountable care organizations, clinically integrated networks, and patient-centered medical homes are perfectly suited to be a positive force in the hearing health of their patients.

Evaluation of Hearing Aids in Everyday Life Using Ecological Momentary Assessment: What Situations Are We Missing?

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method to evaluate hearing aids in everyday life that uses repeated smartphone-based questionnaires to assess a situation as it happens. Although being ecologically valid and avoiding memory bias, this method may be prone to selection biases due to questionnaires being skipped or the phone not being carried along in certain situations. Purpose This investigation analyzed which situations are underrepresented in questionnaire responses and physically measured objective EMA data (e.g., sound level), and how such underrepresentation may depend on different triggers. Method In an EMA study, 20 subjects with hearing impairment provided daily information on reasons for missed data, that is, skipped questionnaires or missing connections between their phone and hearing aids. Results Participants often deliberately did not bring the study phone to social situations or skipped questionnaires because they considered it inappropriate, for example, during church service or when engaging in conversation. They answered fewer questions in conversations with multiple partners and were more likely to postpone questionnaires when not in quiet environments. Conclusion Data for social situations will likely be underrepresented in EMA. However, these situations are particularly important for the evaluation of hearing aids, as individuals with hearing impairment often have difficulties communicating in noisy situations. Thus, it is vital to optimize the design of the study to find a balance between avoiding memory bias and enabling subjects to report retrospectively on situations where phone usage may be difficult. The implications for several applications of EMA are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12746849.

The French Cochlear Implant Registry (EPIIC): Cochlear implant candidacy assessment of off-label indications.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate in France the outcomes of cochlear implantation outside the selection criteria, off-label. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study including adults and children having received a cochlear implant (CI) in an off-label indication, that is outside the criteria established by the "Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)" in 2012. The data was collected from the "EPIIC" registry on recipients who received CIs in France between 2011 and 2014. Speech audiometry was performed at 60dB preimplantation and after one year of CI use, as well as an evaluation of the scores of the quality of life with the APHAB questionnaire, the scores for CAP and the professional/academic status in pre- and post-implantation conditions. Major and minor complications at surgery have been recorded. RESULTS: In total, 590 patients (447 adults and 143 children) with an off-label indication for CIs were included in this study from the EPIIC registry (11.7% of the whole cohort of EPIIC). For adults, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 41% in preimplantation condition versus 53% after one year of CI use (P<0.001) and 60% versus 71% in dissyllabic word lists (P<0.001). The CAP scores were 5 versus 6 in pre- and post-implantation conditions respectively (P<0.001) and the APHAB scores were statistically lower after implantation (P<0.001). In the children cohort, the median percentage of comprehension using monosyllabic word lists was 51% in preimplantation condition and 65% after CI (P<0.001), and 48% versus 82% (P<0.001) for dissyllabic word lists. The CAP scores were 5 versus 7 respectively in pre- and post-CI conditions (P<0.001). Thirty-two minor complications (5.4%) and 17 major complications (2.8%) were reported in our panel of off-label indication patients. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a revision of the cochlear implantation candidacy criteria is necessary to allow more patients with severe or asymmetric hearing loss to benefit from a CI when there is an impact on quality of life despite the use of an optimal hearing aid.

Human-Technology Interaction Considerations in Hearing Health Care: An Introduction for Audiologists.

Purpose Innovations in user-driven hearing technology and services have placed greater control in the hands of the patient. While these advances could address issues of hearing health care accessibility, their success rests on the assumption that patients possess sufficient technological competence to self-manage these products and services successfully. The purpose of this tutorial is to highlight the importance of focusing on usability, rather than just performance outcomes, during the design, development, and evaluation of user-driven hearing technology and services. Method This tutorial explores human-technology interaction and usability and discusses practical methods for applying these concepts in hearing health care research and development. Two case studies illustrate how usability can inform the design and development of interactive educational materials for patients and the evaluation of a commercially available mHealth app. Conclusions In order to derive benefit from innovations in hearing health care, products and services must be intuitively usable in addition to being accessible and affordable. The discipline of human-technology interaction provides a relevant and useful framework to guide future research and development efforts in user-driven hearing health care.