A comparison of interaural asymmetry, audiogram slope, and psychometric measures of tinnitus, hyperacusis, anxiety and depression for patients with unilateral and bilateral tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in tinnitus impact, hyperacusis and hearing threshold level (HTL) between patients with unilateral and bilateral tinnitus. For patients with unilateral tinnitus, to compare audiological variables for the tinnitus ear and the non-tinnitus ear. To assess whether the presence of unilateral tinnitus increases the likelihood of interaural hearing asymmetry (relative to bilateral tinnitus) that warrants referral for an MRI scan. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional. STUDY SAMPLE: Data regarding HTLs and responses to self-report questionnaires were collected from the records of 311 patients attending a tinnitus clinic. RESULTS: 38.5% had unilateral tinnitus and the ears with tinnitus had higher HTLs and greater HTL slopes than the ears without tinnitus. There was no significant difference in tinnitus impact and hyperacusis between patients with unilateral and bilateral tinnitus. 40% of patients with unilateral tinnitus and 13% of patients with bilateral tinnitus had a between-ear difference in HTL ≥15 dB at two adjacent frequencies (2AF15 asymmetry). Unilateral tinnitus increased the risk of 2AF15 asymmetry by a factor of 4.4. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral tinnitus increases the risk of having interaural asymmetry in HTLs that warrants referral for an MRI scan.

Mhealth hearing screening for children by non-specialist health workers in communities.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of a community-based hearing screening programme using smartphone screening audiometry operated by specialist (School Health Nurses - SHNs) and non-specialist health workers (Community Health Workers - CHWs) in school children. DESIGN: This study used a two-group comparison of screening outcomes as conducted by SHNs and CHWs using smartphone screening for children in communities. STUDY SAMPLE: The study included 71 CHWs and 21 SHNs who conducted community-based hearing screening on 6805 children. One thousand one hundred and fifteen hearing screening tests were conducted by the CHWs and 5690 tests by the SHNs. RESULTS: No significant difference in screening outcome was evident between CHWs and SHNs using a binomial logistic regression analysis considering age, test duration and noise levels as independent variables. Final screening result was significantly affected by age (p < 0.005), duration of test (p < 0.005) and noise levels exceeding at 1 kHz in at least one ear (p < 0.005). Test failure was associated with longer test duration (p < 0.005; B: 119.98; 95% CI: 112.65-127.30). CHWs had significantly (p < 0.005) longer test durations (68.70 s; 70 SD) in comparison to SHNs (55.85 s; 66.1 SD). CONCLUSION: Low-cost mobile technologies with automated testing facilitated from user-friendly interfaces allow minimally trained persons to provide community-based screening comparable to specialised personnel.

Smartphone-Based Hearing Screening at Primary Health Care Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of smartphone-based hearing screening with the hearScreen application in terms of sensitivity, specificity, referral rates, and time efficiency at two primary health care clinics. DESIGN: Nonprobability purposive sampling was used at both clinics. A total of 1236 participants (mean age: 37.8 ± SD 17.9 and range 3 to 97 years; 71.3% female) were included in the final analysis. Participants were screened using the hearScreen application following a two-step screening protocol and diagnostic pure-tone audiometry to confirm hearing status. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for smartphone screening was 81.7 and 83.1%, respectively, with a positive and negative predictive value of 87.6 and 75.6%, respectively. Sex [χ(1, N = 126) = 0.304, p > 0.05] and race [χ(1, N = 126) = 0.169, p > 0.05)] had no significant effect on screening outcome for children while for adults age (p < 0.01; ß = 0.04) and sex (p = 0.02; ß = -0.53) had a significant effect on screening outcomes with males more likely to fail. Overall referral rate across clinics was 17.5%. Initial screening test times were less than a minute (48.8 seconds ± 20.8 SD) for adults and slightly more than a minute for children (73.9 seconds ± 44.5 SD). CONCLUSIONS: The hearScreen smartphone application provides time-efficient identification of hearing loss with adequate sensitivity and specificity for accurate testing at primary health care settings.

Global challenges in access to diagnostics and treatment for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients.

SCAN, an online survey, measured access to diagnosis, treatments and monitoring of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients globally. Between September and November 2019, NET patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed an online, semi-standardized survey with 54 patient questions and 33 HCP questions. A total of 2359 patients with NETs and 436 HCPs responded. Misdiagnosis was common (44% [1043/2359]). Mean time to diagnosis was 4.8 years (standard deviation [SD], 6.2). Compared with global figures (60% [1407/2359]), the availability of 68 Ga-DOTA positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) was significantly lower in Asia (45% [126/280]) and higher in Oceania (86% [171/200]). HCPs reported that 68 Ga-DOTA PET/CT was free/affordable to fewer patients in Emerging and Developing Economies (EDE) than Advanced Economies (AE; 17% [26/150] and 59% [84/142], respectively). Compared with global data (52% [1234/2359]), patient-reported availability of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) was significantly lower in Asia (31% [88/280]) and higher in Oceania (61% [122/200]). Significant differences were observed in average annual NET specialist costs between AE and EDE ($1081 and $2915, respectively). Compared with AE, patients in EDE traveled further for NET specialists (1032 [SD, 1578] and 181 [SD, 496] km, respectively). Patients and HCPs both recommended referral to HCPs that were more knowledgeable in the field of NETs and had better access to NET experts/specialist centers. National care pathways, enhancing HCP NET knowledge and ensuring effective diagnostics and access to appropriate treatments are crucial to improving patient survival and NET care worldwide.

Self-Reported Hearing Loss and Pure Tone Audiometry for Screening in Primary Health Care Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of self-reported hearing loss alone and in combination with pure tone audiometry screening in primary health care clinics in South Africa. DESIGN: Nonprobability purposive sampling was used at 2 primary health care clinics. A total of 1084 participants (mean age 41.2 years; SD 15.5 years; range 16-97 years, 74.0% female) were screened using self-report and audiometry screening. Those failing audiometric screening and a sample of those who passed audiometric screening were also assessed by diagnostic pure time audiometry, to confirm or negate the finding of a hearing loss. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-six participants (40.2%) self-reported a hearing loss with no significant association with gender or race. One hundred and thirty-six participant (12.5%) self-reported hearing loss and failed audiometry screening (35 dB HL at 1, 2, and 4 kHz). Combining self-report with a second stage audiometry screening revealed a high test accuracy (81.0%) for hearing loss, being most accurate (86.1%) to identify high-frequency hearing loss. CONCLUSION: While self-report of hearing loss is an easy and time-efficient screening method to use at primary health care clinics, its accuracy may be limited when used in isolation and it may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect hearing loss. Combining a simple audiometry screening as a second-stage screen can significantly improve overall performance and efficiency of the screening protocol.

Prevalence of hearing loss at primary health care clinics in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss prevalence data in South Africa is scarce, especially within primary health care settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine; (i) the prevalence of hearing disorders in patients ≥3 years of age attending two primary health care clinics, and (ii) the nature and characteristics of hearing disorders at these primary health care clinics. METHOD: A cross-sectional design was used at two primary health care clinics. Non-probability purposive sampling was used to screen participants at clinics for hearing loss with pure tone audiometry. A total of 1236 participants were screened (mean age 37.8 ±17.9 years). Diagnostic testing was available for confirmation of hearing loss on participants who failed the screening. RESULTS: Hearing loss prevalence was 17.5% across both clinics. Most hearing losses were bilateral (70.0%) and were of a sensorineural nature (84.2%). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss prevalence was comparable at both primary health care clinics. Participants 40 years and older were at significantly higher risk for hearing loss. The current study is the first attempt to establish hearing loss prevalence for primary health care clinics in South Africa.