Auditory Processing Disorder: Protocols and Controversy.

PURPOSE: This study examined current auditory processing disorder (APD) protocols and audiologists' perspectives on the active debate seen in the literature regarding the status of APD as a unique disorder. METHOD: This study used a cross-sectional, nonexperimental survey design. The participants were 134 U.S. audiologists, representing diversity across experience level and work setting. RESULTS: Popular APD tests from prior surveys remain popular, and a few new tests have emerged. Most audiologists use diverse strategies to identify potential comorbid disorders as part of their APD protocol, including multidisciplinary assessment and referral to other specialists. Most participants disagreed with the assertion that APD is not a unique disorder; however, many also pointed out that patients' struggles with listening need to be the primary focus of APD assessment and management, regardless of the label of the disorder. Qualitative analysis of participant comments on the controversy yielded six themes: Clinical Experience, Comorbidity, Listening Skills, Literature Support, Overdiagnosis, and More Information Needed. CONCLUSION: Most participants consider APD to be a unique disorder, citing clinical experience and the literature for support; however, many also indicated APD is complicated by comorbidity and APD may be overdiagnosed.

Sustainable workforce: South African Audiologists and Speech Therapists.

BACKGROUND: Audiologists and Speech Therapists play a vital role in addressing sustainable development goals by supporting people who are marginalised due to communication challenges. The global burden of disease and poor social living conditions impact negatively on the development of healthy communication, therefore requiring the services of Audiologist and Speech therapists. Against this background, we examined the demographic profile and the supply, need and shortfall of Audiologists and Speech Therapists in South Africa. METHODS: The data set was drawn from the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) registers (for 2002-2017) for the speech, language and hearing professions. This demographic profile of the professions was created based on the category of health personnel; category of practice, geographical location, population group (race) and sex. The annual supply was estimated from the HPCSA database while the service-target approach was used to estimate need. Additional need based on National Health Insurance Bill was also included. Supply-need gaps were forecast according to three scenarios, which varied according to the future intensity of policy intervention to increase occupancy of training places: 'best guess' (no intervention), 'optimistic' (feasible intervention), and 'aspirational' (significant intervention) scenarios up to 2030. RESULTS: Most (i.e. 1548, 47.4%) of the professionals are registered as Audiologists and Speech Therapists, followed by 33.5% registered as Speech Therapists and 19.1% registered as Audiologists. Around 88.5% professionals registered as Audiologists and Speech Therapists are practising independently, and 42.6% are practising in the Gauteng province. The profession is comprised majorly of women (94.6%), and in terms of the population groups (race), they are mainly classified as white (59.7%). In 2017, in best guess scenario, there is a supply-need gap of around 2800 professionals. In the absence of any intervention to increase supply capacity, this shortfall will remain same by the year 2030. By contrast, in aspirational scenario, i.e. supply is increased by 300%, the forecasted shortfall for 2030 reduces to 2300 from 2800 professionals. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that without significant interventions, South Africa is likely to have a critical shortfall of Audiologists and Speech Therapists in 2030. Policy-makers will have to carefully examine issues surrounding the current framework regulating training of these and associated professionals, in order to respond adequately to future requirements.

Audiologists' preferences in programming cochlear implants: A preliminary report.

Background: There is little data available addressing how clinical audiologists handle cochlear implant (CI) programming between device manufacturers and make decisions on related services, particularly in the United States. Objectives: This study sought to understand the techniques and settings professionals use with their patients, how they approach bimodal fitting, which tests they use to evaluate patient and device performance, and their overall preferences of (re)habilitative options. Methods: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to CI audiologists throughout the United States electronically. Results: All respondents reported either always or almost always using Cochlear's default signal processing strategy in contrast to the 64% reported for Med-El and 40% for Advanced Bionics. A trend of less use of electrically evoked stapedial reflex threshold (eSRT) than electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAP) for objective measures was revealed. Higher likelihood of performing speech recognition tests in quiet than in noise was revealed. Preferences for bimodal fitting trend toward using a partner company's hearing aid, although preferences were comparable in adopting four types of hearing aid formulas surveyed in the questionnaire. Conclusions: These data confirm high variability among audiologists' CI programming practices, and documenting these differences is an important step to understanding how to best treat patients.

Clinicians' views of using cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) in the permanent childhood hearing impairment patient pathway.

Objective: To obtain clinicians' views on the use of cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) in the clinical pathway.Design: A questionnaire aimed at clinicians who use the HEARLab system with the Aided Cortical Assessment (ACA) Module. Results compared for Australians (where HEARLab produced) to other countries.Sample: The questionnaire was completed by 49 clinicians; 33 from Australia and 13 clinicians outside of Australia and 3 clinicians, destination unknown.Results: The findings of this research demonstrated that clinicians using CAEPs found them valuable for clinical practice. CAEPs were used to verify or modify hearing aid fittings and were used for counselling parents to reinforce the need for hearing aids. With the use of speech token as the stimulus clinicians had more relevant information to increase confidence in decision-making on paediatric hearing management.Conclusions: The main benefit from the use of CAEPs (using speech token stimuli) was for infant hearing aid fitting programmes, to facilitate earlier decisions relating to hearing aid fitting, for fine-tuning the aids and as an additional measure for cochlear implant referrals.

Auditory Training for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Survey and Cost Analysis Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were as follows: (a) to describe audiologists' practices toward auditory training (AT) for adult cochlear implant (CI) users with a postlingual hearing loss; and (b) to assess the cost of different AT methods for clients and service providers in comparison with no AT delivery. DESIGN: A survey was distributed to approximately 230 Australian CI audiologists to investigate the range, magnitude, and rationale of AT practices adopted as part of rehabilitation services with adult CI users. The cost of these different AT practices was then estimated from the perspectives of both clients and service providers, and compared against no AT delivery. RESULTS: Seventy-eight audiologists responded to at least one section of the survey (16% to 33% response rate), of which 85.5% reported that they viewed AT as a necessary component of rehabilitation. Home-based and face-to-face were the methods most frequently adopted to deliver AT. Methods used during training, such as stimuli type, feedback, and encouragement for training adherence, varied across respondents. The cost analysis indicated that home-based training resulted in the lowest program costs, whereas face-to-face AT (when delivered independently from routine appointments) was the method with highest cost for clients and service providers. CONCLUSIONS: The type of AT, recommended frequency of sessions, and overall duration of programs varied widely across respondents. Costs incurred by clients depended mainly on whether the AT was home-based or clinician-led (i.e., face-to-face, group-based), program fees, and travel arrangements made by clients, as well as clinicians' wages and the method chosen to deliver AT.

Diagnostic accuracy of non-specialist versus specialist health workers in diagnosing hearing loss and ear disease in Malawi.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a non-specialist health worker can accurately undertake audiometry and otoscopy, the essential clinical examinations in a survey of hearing loss, instead of a highly skilled specialist (i.e. ENT or audiologist). METHODS: A clinic-based diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in Malawi. Consecutively sampled participants ≥ 18 years had their hearing tested using a validated tablet-based audiometer (hearTest) by an audiologist (gold standard), an audiology officer, a nurse and a community health worker (CHW). Otoscopy for diagnosis of ear pathologies was conducted by an ENT specialist (gold standard), an ENT clinical officer, a CHW, an ENT nurse and a general nurse. Sensitivity, specificity and kappa (κ) were calculated. 80% sensitivity, 70% specificity and kappa of 0.6 were considered adequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventeen participants were included. High sensitivity (>90%) and specificity (>85%) in detecting bilateral hearing loss was obtained by all non-specialists. For otoscopy, sensitivity and specificity were >80% for all non-specialists in diagnosing any pathology except for the ENT nurse. Agreement in diagnoses for the ENT clinical officer was good (κ = 0.7) in both ears. For other assessors, moderate agreement was found (κ = 0.5). CONCLUSION: A non-specialist can be trained to accurately assess hearing using mobile-based audiometry. However, accurate diagnosis of ear conditions requires at least an ENT clinical officer (or equivalent). Conducting surveys of hearing loss with non-specialists could lower costs and increase data collection, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where ENT specialists are scarce.

OBJECTIF: Déterminer si un agent de santé non spécialisé peut effectuer avec précision une audiométrie et une otoscopie, examens cliniques essentiels dans une évaluation sur la perte auditive, à la place d'un spécialiste hautement qualifié (ORL ou audiologiste). MÉTHODES: Etude de la précision du diagnostic en clinique menée au Malawi. Les participants de l'échantillonnage consécutif âgés de 18 ans et plus ont été testés pour l'audition à l'aide d'un audiomètre sur tablette (HearTest) validé par un audiologiste (référence standard), un agent d'audiologie, une infirmière et un agent de santé communautaire (ASC). L'otoscopie pour le diagnostic des pathologies de l'oreille a été réalisée par un spécialiste ORL (référence-standard), un agent clinique ORL, un ASC, un infirmier ORL et un infirmier général. La sensibilité, la spécificité et kappa (k) ont été calculés. Une sensibilité de 80%, une spécificité de 70% et un kappa de 0,6 ont été jugés adéquats. RÉSULTATS: 617 participants ont été inclus. Tous les non-spécialistes ont obtenu une sensibilité (> 90%) et une spécificité (> 85%) élevées dans la détection de la perte auditive bilatérale. Pour l'otoscopie, la sensibilité et la spécificité étaient > 80% pour tous les non-spécialistes dans le diagnostic de toute pathologie à l'exception des infirmiers ORL. La concordance des diagnostics pour l'agent clinique ORL était bonne (k = 0,7) pour les deux oreilles. Pour les autres évaluateurs, une concordance modérée a été trouvée (k = 0,5). CONCLUSION: Un non spécialiste peut être formé pour évaluer avec précision l'audition à l'aide d'une audiométrie mobile. Cependant, un diagnostic précis des problèmes d'oreille nécessite au moins un agent clinique ORL (ou son équivalent). Mener des évaluations sur la perte auditive par des non-spécialistes pourrait réduire les coûts et augmenter la collecte de données, en particulier dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire, où les spécialistes en ORL sont rares.

Audiologist availability and supply in the United States: A multi-scale spatial and political economic analysis.

This study employs statistical modeling and mapping techniques to analyze the availability and accessibility of audiologists (practitioners who diagnose and treat hearing loss) in the United States at the county scale. The goal is to assess the relationships between socio-demographic and structural factors (such as health policy and clinical programs which train audiologists) and audiologist availability. These associations are analyzed at the county level, via a mixed effects hurdle model. At the county level, the proportion of older adults reporting difficulty hearing is negatively associated with audiologist supply. The findings show that audiologists tend to locate in metropolitan counties with higher median household incomes, younger populations, and lower proportions of older adults reporting hearing difficulty, suggesting an inverse care-type relationship between audiologist availability and need for hearing health services. Notably, neither state legislation requiring insurance plan coverage of hearing services for adults or Medicaid coverage of audiology services were significant predictors of audiologist supply at the county level.

Geographic Distribution of the Hearing Aid Dispensing Workforce: A Teleaudiology Planning Assessment for Arizona.

PURPOSE: Teleaudiology helps connect patients in rural and underresourced areas to hearing health care providers, minimizing the barrier of geography (Swanepoel et al., 2010). In the United States, teleaudiology is at the initial stages of implementation (Bush, Thompson, Irungu, & Ayugi, 2016). Telehealth researchers recommend conducting a comprehensive planning assessment to optimize implementation and adoption (AlDossary, Martin-Khan, Bradford, Armfield, & Smith, 2017; Alverson et al., 2008; Krupinski, 2015). A geographic analysis of the hearing aid dispensing workforce served as the initial stage of a teleaudiology planning assessment in Arizona. METHOD: The analysis used publically available data sets from the U.S. Census, Arizona Department of Health Services, and the U.S. Veterans Administration. Geographic information system tools were used to analyze and visually represent population, potential teleaudiology site data, and hearing aid dispensing workforce (defined as audiologists and hearing instrument specialists licensed to dispense hearing aids in Arizona). ArcGIS was used to generate road networks and travel distance estimations. RESULTS: The number of audiologists per county ranged from 0 to 216 (average 22.1). Six out of Arizona's 15 counties lacked a single audiologist, and 2 counties lacked a hearing instrument specialist. Potential expansion sites for teleaudiology were located in areas of the state that lacked practice locations for hearing aid services. CONCLUSIONS: There are geographic areas of Arizona that lack licensed hearing aid locations yet are populated by individuals who may need services. Resource availability data inform teleaudiology program expansion. Future research will include data from providers and community members on their perceived needs for services.

Audiologist-led screening of acoustic neuromas in patients with asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and/or unilateral tinnitus: our experience in 1126 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients within an otolaryngology department presenting with asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and/or unilateral tinnitus can be safely and cost-efficiently screened for acoustic neuroma by audiologists as a first or only point of contact. METHODS: A prospective case series and cost analysis were conducted at a tertiary referral centre. Between April 2013 and March 2017, 1126 adult patients presented to the audiology department with asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and/or unilateral tinnitus. All were screened for acoustic neuroma with magnetic resonance imaging, based on pre-determined criteria. The main outcome measure was the presence of acoustic neuroma or other pathology on magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (2.22 per cent) were found to have an acoustic neuroma (size range: 3-20 mm) and were referred to the otolaryngologist for further assessment. The remaining patients were appropriately managed and discharged by the audiologists without ENT input. This resulted in an overall cost saving of £164 850. CONCLUSION: Patients with asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and/or unilateral tinnitus can be safely screened for acoustic neuroma and independently managed by audiologists as a first or only point of contact, resulting in considerable departmental cost savings.

Agreement between diagnoses of otitis media by audiologists and otolaryngologists in Aboriginal Australian children.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree of agreement of diagnoses by audiologists and otolaryngologists of otitis media (OM) in Aboriginal children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of agreement between diagnoses. SETTING: Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health (SEARCH), a prospective cohort study of Aboriginal children attending four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services in New South Wales (three metropolitan, one regional) during 2008-2012. PARTICIPANTS: 1310 of 1669 SEARCH participants (78.5%; mean age, 7.0 years; SD, 4.4 years) were assessed and received a diagnosis from one of five experienced audiologists. Test results (but not case histories) were forwarded to one of three otolaryngologists for blinded independent assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of OM diagnoses by audiologists and otolaryngologists at ear and child levels; correctness of audiologist diagnoses (otolaryngologist diagnosis as reference). RESULTS: Paired diagnoses by audiologists and otolaryngologists were available for 863 children at the child level and 1775 ears (989 children) at the ear level. Otolaryngologists diagnosed OM in 251 children (29.1%), including 11 (1.3%) with tympanic membrane perforation, and in 396 ears (22.3%), including 12 (0.7%) with perforation. Agreement between audiologists and otolaryngologists for OM at the ear level was 92.2% (κ = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82), and at the child level 91.7% (κ = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). No otolaryngologist-diagnosed perforation was missed by audiologists. Among 1000 children triaged by an audiologist, there would be 45 false positives and 30 false negatives when compared with assessments by an otolaryngologist, with no missed perforations. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial agreement between audiologists' and otolaryngologists' diagnoses of OM in a high prevalence population of Aboriginal children. In settings with limited access to otolaryngologists, audiologists may appropriately triage children and select those requiring specialist review.

Noncongruence between Audiologist and Patient Preferences for Patient-Centeredness.

BACKGROUND: Trends in preferences of both healthcare providers and patients to patient-centeredness have been emphasized in research. However, an understanding of the nature of preferences to patient-centeredness within the context of the audiologist-patient relationship is needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the congruence between audiologist and patient preferences for patient-centeredness. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was used to gather data from audiologists and patients with hearing loss. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants included 75 audiologists and 105 consecutive patients with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants completed the modified Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) and provided selected demographic information. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t test to evaluate the differences between audiologist and patient congruence. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors contributing to preferences for patient-centeredness. RESULTS: Patients had significantly lower scores in PPOS full scale when compared to the audiologists [t(170) = 0.78; p ≤ 0.001] with a very large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.43). Patients also had significantly lower scores when compared to the audiologists on both the sharing [t(170) = 1.01; p ≤ 0.001] and caring [t(170) = 0.56; p ≤ 0.001] subscales. Statistically significant lower scores were noted for patients when compared to audiologists on 12 items on the PPOS. No relationship between any demographic factors and preferences for patient-centeredness were found. CONCLUSIONS: The current study results indicated noncongruence in preferences for patient-centeredness among audiologists and patients with hearing loss. Results point toward the need for more research considering the nature and impact of patient-centered audiology practice.