Community Perspectives on Hearing Loss in Rural Alaska.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to present an explanatory model of hearing loss in the Bering Strait region of Alaska in order to contextualize the results of a cluster randomized trial and propose implications for regional hearing-related health care. DESIGN: To promote ecological validity, or the generalizability of trial findings to real world experiences, qualitative methods (focus groups and interviews) were used within a mixed methods cluster randomized trial evaluating school hearing screening and follow-up processes in 15 communities in the Bering Strait region of Alaska. Focus groups were held between April and August 2017, and semistructured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and August 2019. Convenience sampling was used for six of the 11 focus groups to capture broad community feedback. Purposive sampling was used for the remaining five focus groups and for all interviews to capture a variety of experiences with hearing loss. Audio recordings of focus groups and interviews were transcribed, and both notes and transcripts were deidentified. All notes and transcripts were included in the analysis. The constant comparative method was used to develop a codebook by iteratively moving between transcripts and preliminary themes. Researchers then used this codebook to code data from all focus groups and interviews using qualitative analysis software (NVIVO 12, QSR International) and conducted thematic analyses to distill the findings presented in this article. RESULTS: Participants in focus groups (n = 116) and interviews (n = 101) shared perspectives in three domains: etiology, impact, and treatment of hearing loss. Regarding etiology, participants emphasized noise-induced hearing loss but also discussed infection-related hearing loss and various causes of ear infections. Participants described the impact of hearing loss on subsistence activities, while also detailing social, academic, and economic consequences. Participants described burdensome treatment pathways that are repetitive and often travel and time intensive. Communication breakdowns within these pathways were also described. Some participants spoke positively of increased access via onsite hearing health care services in "field clinics" as well as via telemedicine services. Others described weaknesses in these processes (infrequent field clinics and communication delays in telemedicine care pathways). Participants also described home remedies and stigma surrounding the treatment for hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered health care requires an understanding of context. Explanatory models of illness are context-specific ways in which patients and their networks perceive and describe the experience of an illness or disability. In this study, we documented explanatory models of hearing loss to foster ecological validity and better understand the relevance of research findings to real-life hearing-related experiences. These findings suggest several areas that should be addressed in future implementation of hearing health care interventions elsewhere in rural Alaska, including management of repetitious treatments, awareness of infection-mediated hearing loss, mistrust, and communication breakdowns. For hearing-related health care in this region, these findings suggest localized recommendations for approaches for prevention and treatment. For community-based hearing research, this study offers an example of how qualitative methods can be used to generate ecologically valid (i.e., contextually grounded) findings.

Mobile Health School Screening and Telemedicine Referral to Improve Access to Specialty Care in Rural Alaska: Integrating Mixed Methods Data to Contextualize Trial Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To understand factors associated with outcomes in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that evaluated a telemedicine specialty referral intervention for school hearing screenings in 15 rural Alaskan communities. DESIGN: Hearing Norton Sound was a mixed methods cluster-randomized controlled trial that compared a telemedicine specialty referral pathway (intervention) to a standard primary care referral pathway (control) for school hearing screenings. As a mixed methods trial, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed, and integrated. Main trial results are published elsewhere, but integration of community-specific quantitative outcomes and qualitative results have not yet been reported. The constant comparative method was used to analyze qualitative data from semistructured interviews with six stakeholder groups across all 15 communities. Descriptive statistics were used to describe community-specific proportions of follow-up in both trial years. Qualitative and quantitative results were integrated to reveal relationships between contextual factors and follow-up outcomes across communities. RESULTS: The Hearing Norton Sound trial enrolled 1481 children from October 2017 to March 2019, with a total of 790 children requiring referral. Of the children who referred in the telemedicine specialty referral pathway communities (intervention), 68.5% received follow-up (268/391), compared to 32.1% (128/399) in primary care referral communities (control)(previously reported). When broken down by community, the mean proportion receiving follow-up was 75.26% (SD 22.5) and 37.9% (SD 11.4) for the telemedicine specialty referral communities and primary care referral communities, respectively. For qualitative data collection, semistructured interviews were conducted with 101 individuals between December 2018 and August 2019. Six stakeholder groups participated: elders (n = 14), parents (n = 25), children (n = 11), teachers/school staff (n = 18), principals (n = 6), and healthcare providers/clinic staff (n = 27). Six overall factors related to the outcomes of the telemedicine specialty referral pathway emerged during analysis: clinic capacity, personnel ownership and engagement, scheduling, telemedicine equipment/processes, communication, and awareness of the need for follow-up. We integrated these factors with the community-specific follow-up percentages and found associations for four of the six qualitative factors: clinic capacity, personnel ownership and engagement, communication, and awareness. An association was not seen for scheduling and telemedicine equipment/processes, which had variable relationships with the follow-up outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Hearing Norton Sound trial demonstrated that a telemedicine specialty referral pathway can close the gap on children lost to follow up after school hearing screening. As a whole, the intervention profoundly increased the proportion of children receiving follow-up, but there was variability in outcomes within and between communities. To understand this variability, we analyzed community-specific intervention outcomes alongside community member feedback on factors related to the intervention. We identified four key factors that contributed to the success of the intervention. Attention to these factors will be essential to successful adaptation and implementation of this telemedicine specialty referral intervention and other similar interventions in future work in rural Alaska and beyond.

Hearing Norton Sound: community involvement in the design of a mixed methods community randomized trial in 15 Alaska Native communities.

Community involvement is important in good research practice. We led a community-based study to improve early detection and treatment of childhood hearing loss in rural Alaska. This study evaluated a cell phone-based hearing screening process and compared a new telemedicine specialty referral pathway to the standard primary care referral pathway. The study included community involvement, engagement, and participation from the very beginning to inform how to best design the trial. We obtained insight and feedback from community members through involvement of a core stakeholder team and through community engagement and participation in focus groups and community events. Feedback received through community involvement and participation influenced the design of the trial at key decision points. Community member guidance shaped the research question, the outcomes to be measured, and the procedures for completing the project, such as participant recruitment. This study offers an example of community involvement, engagement and participation that could be mirrored in future research to maintain the interests of participating communities. Background Effective systems for early identification and treatment of childhood hearing loss are essential in rural Alaska, where data indicate a high prevalence of childhood ear infections and hearing loss. However, loss to follow-up from school hearing screening programs is pervasive. The Hearing Norton Sound study was a mixed methods community randomized controlled trial that was developed to address this gap. The study engaged community members and participants in the design of the trial, including involvement of stakeholders as collaborators. Methods Community engagement and participation in research design occurred through focus groups and through the integration of stakeholders into the study team. Representation was cross-sectoral, involving individuals from multiple levels of the school and health system, as well as community members from each of the 15 communities. Feedback obtained between April 2017 and August 2017 informed the final design of the randomized trial, which began enrollment of children in October 2017 and concluded in March 2019. Results Stakeholder involvement and community participation shaped the design of specific trial elements (research question; comparators; outcomes and measures; telemedicine protocols; and recruitment and retention). Community involvement was strengthened by the use of multiple modalities of involvement and by the positionality of lead stakeholders on the study team. Conclusions This study highlights the effectiveness of multifaceted stakeholder involvement and participation in the design of health research conducted within Alaska Native communities. It offers an example of involvement and reporting that could be mirrored in future research in order to protect and further the interests of the participating community. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03309553 , First registered 10/9/2017.