Speech perception, real-ear measurements and self-perceived hearing impairment after remote and face-to-face programming of hearing aids: A randomized single-blind agreement study.

INTRODUCTION: Current literature does not provide strong evidence that remote programming of hearing aids is effective, despite its increasing use by audiologists. We tested speech perception outcomes, real-ear insertion gain, and changes in self-perceived hearing impairment after face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids in a randomized multicentre, single-blind crossover study. METHODS: Adult experienced hearing aid users were enrolled during routine follow-up visits to audiology clinics. Hearing aids were programmed both face to face and remotely, then participants randomly received either the face-to-face or remote settings in a blinded manner and were evaluated 5 weeks later. Participants then received the other settings and were evaluated 5 weeks later. RESULTS: Data from 52 out of 60 participants were analysed. We found excellent concordance in performance of hearing aids programmed face to face and remotely for speech understanding in quiet (phonetically balanced kindergarten test - intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.95)), and good concordance in performance for speech understanding in noise (phonetically balanced kindergarten +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio - intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.82)). Face-to-face and remote programming took 10 minutes (±2.9) and 10 minutes (±2.8), respectively. Real-ear insertion gains were highly correlated for input sound at 50, 65 and 80 dB sound pressure levels. The programming type did not affect the abbreviated profile of hearing aid questionnaire scores. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hearing aid users, face-to-face and remote programming of hearing aids give similar results in terms of speech perception, with no increase in the time spent on patients' care and no difference in self-reported hearing benefit. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02589561.

Evaluation of otoscopy simulation as a training tool for real-time remote otoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Teleotoscopy requires the assistance of telehealth facilitators; but their training requirements remain to be determined. We evaluated the use of an otoscopy simulator to train facilitators to remote otoscopies sent via the Internet using a teleaudiology platform. DESIGN: Neurotologists experts were asked to identify images using the otoscopy simulator and to perform an identification task of significant anatomical landmarks. The experts were asked to repeat those tasks remotely, with the help of facilitators who either received basic training, or no training prior to the experiment. STUDY SAMPLE: Three experts, three trained facilitators and three untrained facilitators participated in this study. RESULTS: The use of an otoscopy simulator in addition to remote otoscopy yielded a good inter- and intrarater agreement (κ between 0.81-1, and 0.80-0.87, respectively). The accuracy of diagnosis was high on-site (11.7% error) and remotely (0% error). The time required for landmark identification task was not increased when performed remotely with a trained facilitator versus on-site otoscopy (9.3 versus 9.2 s/landmark). Conversely, the lack of training of facilitators increased significantly this time (15.6 s/landmark, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An otoscopic simulator coupled to teleaudiology software can be used to efficiently train both experts and facilitators to perform remote otoscopy.

Electronic and paper versions of a faces pain intensity scale: concordance and preference in hospitalized children.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of pain in children is an important aspect of pain management and can be performed by observational methods or by self-assessment. The Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) is a self-report tool which has strong positive correlations with other well established self-report pain intensity measures. It has been recommended for measuring pain intensity in school-aged children (4 years and older). The objective of this study is to compare the concordance and the preference for two versions, electronic and paper, of the FPS-R, and to determine whether an electronic version of the FPS-R can be used by children aged 4 and older. METHODS: The study is an observational, multicenter, randomized, cross-over, controlled, open trial. Medical and surgical patients in two pediatric hospitals (N=202, age 4-12 years, mean age 8.3 years, 58% male) provided self-reports of their present pain using the FPS-R on a personal digital assistant (PDA) and on a paper version. Paper and electronic versions of the FPS-R were administered by a nurse in a randomized order: half the patients were given the PDA version first and the other half the paper version first. The time between the administrations was planned to be less than 30 minutes but not simultaneous. Two hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled; 35 were excluded from analysis because of misunderstanding of instructions or abnormal time between the two assessments. RESULTS: Final population for analysis comprised 202 children. The overall weighted Kappa was 0.846 (95%CI: 0.795; 0.896) and the Spearman correlation between scores on the two versions was rs=0.911 (p<0.0001). The mean difference of pain scores was less than 0.1 out of 10, which was neither statistically nor clinically significant; 83.2% of children chose the same face on both versions of the FPS-R. Preference was not modified by order, sex, age, hospitalization unit (medical or surgical units), or previous analgesics. The PDA was preferred by 87.4% of the children who expressed a preference. CONCLUSION: The electronic version of the FPS-R can be recommended for use with children aged 4 to 12, either in clinical trials or in hospitals to monitor pain intensity.