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.

The Impact of Hearing Loss and Its Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life Utility: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss significantly impacts health-related quality of life (QoL), yet the effects of current treatments on QoL utility remain uncertain. Our objective was to describe the impact of untreated and treated hearing loss on QoL utility to inform hearing healthcare policy. METHODS: We searched databases for articles published through 02/01/2021. Two independent reviewers screened for articles that reported elicitation of general QoL utility values for untreated and treated hearing loss health states. We extracted data and quality indicators from 62 studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Included studies predominately used observational pre/post designs (61%), evaluated unilateral cochlear implantation (65%), administered the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3; 71%), and were conducted in Europe and North America (84%). In general, treatment of hearing loss improved post-treatment QoL utility when measured by most methods except the Euro-QoL 5 dimension (EQ-5D). In meta-analysis, hearing aids for adult mild-to-moderate hearing loss compared to no treatment significantly improved HUI3-estimated QoL utility (3 studies; mean change=0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07 to 0.14) but did not impact EQ-5D-estimated QoL (3 studies; mean change=0.0; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04). Cochlear implants improved adult QoL utility 1-year post-implantation when measured by the HUI3 (7 studies; mean change=0.17; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.23); however, pediatric VAS-estimated QoL utility was non-significant (4 studies; mean change=0.12; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.25). The quality of included studies was limited by failure to report missingness of data and low survey response rates. Our study was limited by heterogeneous study populations and designs. FINDINGS: Treatment of hearing loss significantly improves QoL utility, and the HUI3 and VAS were most sensitive to improvements in hearing. Improved access to hearing healthcare should be prioritized. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021253314.

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).

Comparative implementation-effectiveness of three strategies to perform hearing screening among older adults in primary care clinics: study design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: The burden of hearing loss among older adults could be mitigated with appropriate care. This study compares implementation of three hearing screening strategies in primary care, and examines the reliability and validity of patient self-assessment, primary care providers (PCP) and diagnostic audiologists in the identification of 'red flag' conditions (those conditions that may require medical consultation and/or intervention). METHODS: Six primary care practices will implement one of three screening strategies (2 practices per strategy) with 660 patients (220 per strategy) ages 65-75 years with no history of hearing aid use or diagnosis of hearing loss. Strategies differ on the location and use of PCP encouragement to complete a telephone-based hearing screen (tele-HS). Group 1: instructions for tele-HS to complete at home and educational materials on warning signs and consequences of hearing loss. Group 2: PCP counseling/encouragement on importance of hearing screening, instructions to take the tele-HS from home, educational materials. Group 3: PCP counseling/encouragement, in-office tele-HS, and educational materials. Patients from all groups who fail the tele-HS will be referred for diagnostic audiological testing and medical evaluation, and complete a self-assessment of red flag conditions at this follow-up appointment. Due to the expected low incidence of ear disease in the PCP cohort, we will enroll a complementary population of patients (N = 500) from selected otolaryngology head and neck surgery clinics in a national practice-based research network to increase the likelihood of occurrence of medical conditions that might contraindicate hearing aid fitting. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who complete the tele-HS within 2 months of the PCP appointment comparing Group 3 (PCP encouragement, in-office tele-HS, education) versus Groups 2 and 1 (education and tele-HS at home, with and without PCP encouragement, respectively). The several secondary outcomes include direct and indirect costs, patient, family and provider attitudes of hearing healthcare, and accuracy of red flag condition evaluations compared with expert medical assessment by an otolaryngology provider. DISCUSSION: Determining the relative effectiveness of three different strategies for hearing screening in primary care and the assessment accuracy of red flag conditions can each lead to practice and policy changes that will reduce individual, family and societal burden from hearing loss among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928107; 10/10/2016 protocol version 1.

AutoAudio: Deep Learning for Automatic Audiogram Interpretation.

Hearing loss is the leading human sensory system loss, and one of the leading causes for years lived with disability with significant effects on quality of life, social isolation, and overall health. Coupled with a forecast of increased hearing loss burden worldwide, national and international health organizations have urgently recommended that access to hearing evaluation be expanded to meet demand. The objective of this study was to develop 'AutoAudio' - a novel deep learning proof-of-concept model that accurately and quickly interprets diagnostic audiograms. Adult audiogram reports representing normal, conductive, mixed and sensorineural morphologies were used to train different neural network architectures. Image augmentation techniques were used to increase the training image set size. Classification accuracy on a separate test set was used to assess model performance. The architecture with the highest out-of-training set accuracy was ResNet-101 at 97.5%. Neural network training time varied between 2 to 7 h depending on the depth of the neural network architecture. Each neural network architecture produced misclassifications that arose from failures of the model to correctly label the audiogram with the appropriate hearing loss type. The most commonly misclassified hearing loss type were mixed losses. Re-engineering the process of hearing testing with a machine learning innovation may help enhance access to the growing worldwide population that is expected to require audiologist services. Our results suggest that deep learning may be a transformative technology that enables automatic and accurate audiogram interpretation.

Hearing loss and psychiatric disorders: a review.

Hearing loss is one of the most common yet unrecognized impairments experienced by adults, especially as they age. Mental health investigators and practitioners require better understanding of hearing loss, its association with psychiatric disorders, and the treatment of these disorders in the presence of hearing loss as well as the treatment of hearing loss itself. In this review, the authors briefly explore the global burden of hearing loss. Next we provide an overview of the extant literature on hearing loss associated with cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety disorders, psychoses, and quality of life with attention focused on the strength of the association, possible mechanisms explaining the association, data on treatment options specific to these disorders, and future research opportunities for these disorders. Current approaches to the treatment of hearing loss are presented, including hearing aids, rehabilitation including psychotherapies, surgical procedures (specifically cochlear implants), and induction loops connected to telecoils. Finally, cutting edge research into the pathophysiology and potential biological treatments of hearing loss is described.

Communication and Healthcare: Self-Reports of People with Hearing Loss in Primary Care Settings.

Objectives: To assess the experiences of people with hearing loss in healthcare environments to characterize miscommunication and unmet needs, and guide recommendations for improving outcomes and access. Methods: Anonymous survey developed by subject-matter experts was posted on a large national hearing-loss consumer and advocacy organization website and email listserv. Data were collected and managed via RedCAP. Results: Responses were received from 1581 individuals. Respondents reported moderate or significant difficulty communicating with all listed providers. Three communication situations emerged as often presenting communication difficulties: hearing one's name when called in the waiting room, hearing when the speaker's back was turned, and hearing when communicating by telephone. Despite 93% of respondents indicating they sometimes or often let providers know about their hearing loss, 29.3% of all respondents still reported that no arrangements were made to improve communication. Conclusions: This study clearly demonstrates the ongoing difficulties faced by individuals with hearing loss, particularly older adults, as they attempt to navigate both providers and situations associated with a typical primary care office visit. Clinical Implications: Inexpensive and efficient changes to improve communication include (1) Improving one-on-one provider communication by facing the individual with good lighting, clear speaking, and not obstructing one's mouth; (2) Environmental changes such as using visual or tactile alerting devices in waiting rooms and adding noise-dampening carpeting and curtains; and (3) Avoiding telephones and conveying health information in writing.

Global hearing health care: new findings and perspectives.

In 2015, approximately half a billion people had disabling hearing loss, about 6·8% of the world's population. These numbers are substantially higher than estimates published before 2013, and point to the growing importance of hearing loss and global hearing health care. In this Review, we describe the burden of hearing loss and offer our and others' recommendations for halting and then reversing the continuing increases in this burden. Low-cost possibilities exist for prevention of hearing loss, as do unprecedented opportunities to reduce the generally high treatment costs. These possibilities and opportunities could and should be exploited. Additionally, a comprehensive worldwide initiative like VISION 2020 but for hearing could provide a focus for support and also enable and facilitate the increased efforts that are needed to reduce the burden. Success would produce major personal and societal gains, including gains that would help to fulfil the "healthy lives" and "disability inclusive" goals in the UN's new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: To review evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) among children and adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: Publications related to quality of life (QoL) and costs of care in CI were acquired through searches in English-language databases. Studies were included if they had identified the HRQoL attainment, cost of care, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness associated with CI. RESULTS: 57 studies were critically reviewed. The QoL outcome metrics used in these articles were divided into 2 categories - generic and condition specific. In studies investigating children, many reported no significant difference in QoL attainment between CI recipients and normal-hearing peers. In adults, significant improvements in QoL after implantation and higher QoL than in their nonimplanted (hearing-aided) peers were frequently reported. Studies involving an older adult cohort reported significant improvement in QoL after implantation, which was often independent of audiological performance. Overall, the calculated cost-utility ratios consistently met the threshold of cost acceptance, indicating acceptable values for expenditures on CI. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable work has been done on the QoL attainment and health economic implications of CI. Unilateral CI across all age groups leads to reported sustained benefits in the recipients' overall and disease-specific QoL. With increased cost associated with bilateral CI, further study is needed to characterize its costs and benefits with respect to the recipients' health, well-being, and contributions to society.

Over-the-counter Hearing Aids: From Research to Policy to Practice.

In this Viewpoint from officials at NIH and FDA, the authors discuss research collaborations between federal agencies and the private sector, using new regulations for over-the-counter hearing aids as an illustration.

Mini Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Unilateral Osseointegrated Implants in Adults: Possibly Cost-Effective for the Correct Indication.

An osseointegrated implant (e.g. bone-anchored hearing aid, BAHA) is a surgically implantable device for unilateral sensorineural and unilateral or bilateral conductive hearing loss in patients who otherwise cannot use or do not prefer a conventional air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). The specific indications for an osseointegrated implant are evolving and dependent upon the country or regulatory body overseeing the provision of these devices. However, there are general groups of patients who would be likely to benefit, one such group being patients with congenital aural atresia. Given the anatomical aberrancies with aural atresia, these subjects cannot wear ACHAs. Another group of patients who may benefit from an osseointegrated implant over an ACHA are patients with chronically draining otological infections. As the provision of an osseointegrated implant requires a surgical procedure, there are inherent direct and indirect costs associated with its use beyond those required for an ACHA. Consideration of outcomes and cost-effectiveness for the osseointegrated implant versus the ACHA is prudent prior to making policy decisions in a setting of limited health care resources. We performed a mini review on all available cost-effectiveness analyses of osseointegrated implants published in Medline. There are only 2 contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses published to date. There is limited quality of life data available for patients living with an osseointegrated implant. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of the osseointegrated implant, specifically the BAHA, compared to conventional hearing aid devices remains unclear. However, there are clear indications for the BAHA when a standard hearing aid cannot be used (e.g. chronic draining ear) or in single-sided severe-to-profound hearing loss with reasonable hearing in the contralateral ear. The BAHA should not be considered interchangeable with the ACHA with regard to cost-effectiveness, but rather considered as an effective option for the patient for the correct indication.

Access to and Uptake of Cochlear Implantation Among Children in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a highly effective intervention for children with advanced hearing loss who cannot benefit from amplification. Despite the established benefits of CI, it is likely that not all children who are potential candidates for CI receive this intervention. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of North Carolina children who are candidates for and end up undergoing CI, and to detect whether barriers exist that prevent access to care for unimplanted candidates. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of 1,501 children whose families were served by BEGINNINGS from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013. All families of children identified as potential CI candidates who were able to participate in the study (n = 141) were contacted by BEGINNINGS parent educators who queried parents about their child's use of technology and any reasons for lack of use of technology. RESULTS: Overall, 60.9% of children diagnosed with profound, severe-profound, severe, moderate-severe, or moderate-profound hearing loss received at least 1 cochlear implant. For children with profound hearing loss, 88.9% had a least 1 cochlear implant. Common reasons for the decision not to perform CI included parental preference and anatomical issues unfavorable to CI. LIMITATIONS: Some information was not included in the database, including socioeconomic status and the child's age at the time of intervention. CONCLUSION: The rate of CI for North Carolina children who have advanced hearing loss is greater than 60% and significantly higher for children with greater degrees of impairment. No significant financial or geographic barriers to CI were identified. We hypothesize that the high rate of CI for appropriate candidates in North Carolina is due in part to parental access to counseling and education provided through BEGINNINGS.

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Factor Structure, Internal Consistency and Convergent Validity in Patients with Dizziness.

Psychiatric comorbidities, particularly anxiety-related pathologies, are often observed in dizzy patients. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a widely used self-report instrument used to screen for anxiety and depression in medical outpatient settings. The purpose of this study was to assess the factor structure, internal consistency and convergent validity of the HADS in an unselected group of patients with dizziness. The HADS and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) were administered to 205 dizzy patients. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and indicated a 3-factor structure, inconsistent with the 2-subscale structure (i.e. anxiety and depression) of the HADS. The total scale was found to be internally consistent, and convergent validity, as assessed using the DHI, was acceptable. Overall findings suggest that the HADS should not be used as a tool for psychiatric differential diagnosis, but rather as a helpful screener for general psychiatric distress in the two domains of psychiatric illness most germane in dizzy patients.

Provider and patient drivers of ototopical antibiotic prescription variability.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if providers prescribe more affordable topical antibacterial therapy for patients who are economically disadvantaged or come from economically disadvantaged communities. STUDY DESIGN: Prescription drug database review. SETTING: Large academic hospital network. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ototopical prescription records of 2416 adults and children presenting with acute and chronic otologic infections from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. Prescription, patient, provider, and institution variables including diagnosis, prescription type, demographics, health insurance status, healthcare provider type and setting were analyzed. RESULTS: Otitis externa and acute otitis media were the most common diagnoses. Non-OHNS (Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) providers served 82% of all patients. OHNS providers prescribed proportionally less fluoroquinolone, and more brand-name antibiotics compared to non-OHNS providers. Adults were more likely to receive a non-fluoroquinolone antibiotic and a generic prescription versus pediatric patients. Patients who self-identified as 'white' ethnicity received proportionally more fluoroquinolone prescriptions than patients who identified as 'non-white,' but there was no difference in provider type. The proportion of fluoroquinolone prescriptions was significantly higher in patients from low-poverty counties, however poverty level was not associated with patients seeing a particular provider type. The majority of our patients had commercial insurance, followed by Medicaid. Medicare patients had the lowest proportion of fluoroquinolone antibiotic prescriptions, and were less likely to receive fluoroquinolone prescriptions versus commercial insurance. Non-insured patients received proportionally more generic versus brand prescriptions than insured patients. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate potential provider, patient demographic, and financial factors producing considerable variability in the prescribing patterns for topical antibiotics for common otologic infections.

Priorities for hearing loss prevention and estimates of global cause-specific burdens of hearing loss: a systematic rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects approximately 1·6 billion individuals worldwide. Many cases are preventable. We aimed to estimate the annual number of new hearing loss cases that could be attributed to meningitis, otitis media, congenital rubella syndrome, cytomegalovirus, and ototoxic medications, specifically aminoglycosides, platinum-based chemotherapeutics, and antimalarials. METHODS: We used a targeted and a rapid systematic literature review to calculate yearly global incidences of each cause of hearing loss. We estimated the prevalence of hearing loss for each presumed cause. For each cause, we calculated the global number of yearly hearing loss cases associated with the exposure by multiplying the estimated exposed population by the prevalence of hearing loss associated with the exposure, accounting for mortality when warranted. FINDINGS: An estimated 257·3 million people per year are exposed to these preventable causes of hearing loss, leading to an estimated 33·8 million new cases of hearing loss worldwide per year. Most hearing loss cases were among those with exposure to ototoxic medications (19·6 million [range 12·6 million-27·9 million] from short-course aminoglycoside therapy and 12·3 million from antimalarials). We estimated that 818 000 cases of hearing loss were caused by otitis media, 346 000 by meningitis, 114 000 by cytomegalovirus, and 59 000 by congenital rubella syndrome. INTERPRETATION: The global burden of preventable hearing loss is large. Hearing loss that is attributable to disease sequelae or ototoxic medications contributes substantially to the global burden of hearing loss. Prevention of these conditions should be a global health priority. FUNDING: The US National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the US National Institute on Aging.