Assessment of Appalachian region pediatric hearing healthcare disparities and delays

Help-seeking behaviour of parents of children with hearing loss in India: a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

The age of identification of hearing loss in children is highly influenced by the hearing help seeking behaviour of their parents, particularly in countries without universal newborn hearing screening programs. In this study, an attempt was made to identify the factors associated with help seeking behaviour in parents of children with hearing loss, and the relationship of such factors with the age of identification of hearing loss.

DESIGN

Focus group discussions based on the framework of health belief model were carried out. The discussions were transcribed and the transcripts were thematically analysed.

STUDY SAMPLE

Participants were 35 parents of children with hearing loss from the state of Karnataka in India.

RESULTS

The findings revealed 30 factors related to their awareness about hearing loss, geographical location, socio-economic status, family, and society. The factors differed between early and late help seekers.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness, accessibility, and affordability are the key factors that influenced the hearing help seeking behaviour of the participants. Effective public awareness programs, newborn hearing screening programs, and provisions to make hearing healthcare affordable to all can reduce the age of identification of paediatric hearing loss in India.

Teletherapy to address language disparities in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: study protocol for an inclusive multicentre clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) are at risk for speech and language delay. Language outcomes are worse in DHH children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, due in part to disparities in access to specialised speech-language therapy. Teletherapy may help improve access to this specialised care and close this language gap. Inclusion of diverse DHH children in prospective randomised clinical trials has been challenging but is necessary to address disparities and pursue hearing health equity. Stakeholder input regarding decisions on study design elements, including comparator groups, masking, assessments and compensation, is necessary to design inclusive studies. We have designed an inclusive, equitable comparativeness effectiveness trial to address disparities in paediatric hearing health. The specific aims of the study are to determine the effect of access to and utilisation of speech-language teletherapy in addressing language disparities in low-income children who are DHH.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

After stakeholder input and pilot data collection, we designed a randomised clinical trial and concurrent longitudinal cohort trial to be conducted at four tertiary children's hospitals in the USA. Participants will include 210 DHH children aged 0-27 months. 140 of these children will be from lower income households, who will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual care versus usual care plus access to supplemental speech-language teletherapy. 70 children from higher income households will be simultaneously recruited as a comparison cohort. Primary outcome measure will be the Preschool Language Scales Auditory Comprehension subscale standard score, with additional speech, language, hearing and quality of life validated measures as secondary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites: the University of California, San Francisco (19-28356), Rady Children's Hospital (804651) and Seattle Children's Hospital (STUDY00003750). Parents of enrolled children will provide written informed consent for their child's participation. Professional and parent stakeholder groups that have been involved throughout the study design will facilitate dissemination and implementation of study findings via publication and through national and regional organisations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04928209.

The paradox of high greenness and poor health in rural Central Appalachia

While many studies have found positive correlations between greenness and human health, rural Central Appalachia is an exception. The region has high greenness levels but poor health. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a possible explanation for this paradox: three sets of factors overwhelming or attenuating the health benefits of greenness. These include environmental (e.g., steep typography and limited access to green space used for outdoor recreation), social (e.g., chronic poverty, declining coal industry, and limited access to healthcare), and psychological and behavioral factors (e.g., perceptions about health behaviors, healthcare, and greenness). The influence of these factors on the expected health benefits of greenness should be considered as working hypotheses for future research. Policymakers and public health officials need to ensure that greenness-based interventions account for contextual factors and other determinants of health to ensure these interventions have the expected health benefits.

Factors that influence health service access in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Early diagnosis and intervention of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children leads to improved language and psychosocial outcomes. However, many child, parent and provider related factors can influence access to early intervention services, including hearing devices. This narrative review aims to explore factors that influence health service access in DHH children.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted to identify articles that explored factors that influenced health service access in DHH children in countries with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, published between 2010 and 2022.

STUDY SAMPLES

Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. This included 4 systematic reviews, 2 reviews, 39 quantitative and 5 mixed methods studies and 9 qualitative studies.

RESULTS

The identified factors were grouped into the following themes: (a) demographic factors, (b) family related factors, (c) child related factors, (d) factors specific to hearing devices, (e) service delivery, f) telehealth and (g) COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

This review provided a comprehensive summary of multiple factors that affect access to health services in DHH children. Psychosocial support, consistent clinical advice, allocation of resources to rural communities and use of telehealth are possible ways to address barriers and improve health service access.

Risk Factors Associated with Delays in Hearing Loss Identification in Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVE

To identify sociodemographic factors associated with pediatric late-identified hearing loss (LIHL) and classify novel subgroups within the LIHL population.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary children's hospital.

METHODS

Our cohort included children with permanent hearing loss (HL) between 2012 and 2020 (n = 1087). Patients with early-identified HL were compared to patients with LIHL (>6 months of age at diagnosis), and 3 subgroups: (1) late-identified congenital HL: failed NHS but had a diagnostic audiogram >6 months old; (2) late-onset HL: passed NHS and identified with HL after 6 months old; (3) late-identified, unknown-onset: unknown NHS results, identified after 6 months old. Geospatial analysis was performed using ArcGIS Pro.

RESULTS

Compared with early-identified children, children with LIHL were more likely to have more comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] = 1.12, [1.01, 1.23]), be an under-represented minority (URM) (OR = 1.92, [1.27, 2.93]) and have a higher social vulnerability index (SVI) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.1, [1.14, 3.87]). However, subgroups in the LIHL cohort had variable associations. Children with late-identified unknown onset hearing loss were uniquely associated with a primarily non-English speaking household (AOR = 1.84, [1.04, 3.25]), whereas children with late-onset hearing loss were less likely to have public insurance (AOR = 0.47, [0.27, 0.81]. There were no significant associations for children with late-identified congenital hearing loss. Neighborhood disadvantage, as measured by SVI, had an increased association with late-identified unknown onset HL (AOR = 4.08, [2.01, 8.28]) and a decreased association with late-onset HL (AOR = 0.40, [0.22, 0.72]).

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors serve as proxies for health care access, and these factors vary across LIHL pathways. Understanding the risk factors associated with each LIHL subgroup may help address disparities in pediatric HL identification.

Health equity in pediatrics: Current concepts for the care of children in the 21st century (Dis Mon)

This is an analysis of important aspects of health equity in caring for children and adolescents written by a multidisciplinary team from different medical centers. In this discussion for clinicians, we look at definitions of pediatric health equity and the enormous impact of social determinants of health in this area. Factors involved with pediatric healthcare disparities that are considered include race, ethnicity, gender, age, poverty, socioeconomic status, LGBT status, living in rural communities, housing instability, food insecurity, access to transportation, availability of healthcare professionals, the status of education, and employment as well as immigration. Additional issues involved with health equity in pediatrics that are reviewed will include the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, behavioral health concepts, and the negative health effects of climate change. Recommendations that are presented include reflection of one's own attitudes on as well as an understanding of these topics, consideration of the role of various healthcare providers (i.e., community health workers, peer health navigators, others), the impact of behavioral health integration, and the need for well-conceived curricula as well as multi-faceted training programs in pediatric health equity at the undergraduate and postgraduate medical education levels. Furthermore, ongoing research in pediatric health equity is needed to scrutinize current concepts and stimulate the development of ideas with an ever-greater positive influence on the health of our beloved children. Clinicians caring for children can serve as champions for the optimal health of children and their families; in addition, these healthcare professionals are uniquely positioned in their daily work to understand the drivers of health inequities and to be advocates for optimal health equity in the 21st century for all children and adolescents.

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients.

DATABASES REVIEWED

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Reporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

Hearing health care access for adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients: Travel time and socioeconomic status

Objectives

Access to cochlear implantation may be negatively influenced by extended travel time to a cochlear implant (CI) center or lower socioeconomic status (SES) for the individual. There is a critical need to understand the influence of these variables on patient appointment attendance for candidacy evaluations, and CI recipients' adherence to post-activation follow-up recommendations that support optimal outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of adult patients referred to a CI center in North Carolina for initial cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation between April 2017 and July 2019 was conducted. Demographic and audiologic data were collected for each patient. Travel time was determined using geocoding. SES was proxied using ZCTA-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) information. Independent samples t tests compared variables between those who did and did not attend the candidacy evaluation. Pearson correlations assessed the association of these variables and the duration of time between initial CI activation and return for first follow-up visit.

Results

Three hundred and ninety patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between SDI of those who attended their candidacy evaluation versus those who did not. Age at referral or travel time did not show statistical significance between these two groups. There was no significant correlation with age at referral, travel time, or SDI with the duration of time (days) between initial activation and the 1-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that SES may influence a patient's ability to attend a cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation appointment and may further impact the decision to pursue cochlear implantation.Level of evidence: 4 - Case Series.

Socioeconomic position and hearing loss: current understanding and recent advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe recent literature examining the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and hearing loss, including the impact of hearing loss on several socioeconomic outcomes over the life course. Additionally, we highlight current policy advances in recent years and review alternative models of hearing care that aim to address disparities related to SEP and hearing healthcare.

RECENT FINDINGS

Applying a social epidemiologic lens to hearing health gives insight into the role of material and social contexts in understanding and improving hearing health outcomes. Recent studies investigating the intersection of SEP and hearing health highlight the disparities that exist for individuals with low SEP as well as the influence of hearing loss on SEP. Individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be unemployed, have lower educational attainment, lower income, and are less likely to use hearing aids and access hearing care. Legislation addressing cost and access to hearing care as well as transforming the current landscape of hearing care, is essential to creating equitable care for individuals, especially older adults, with low SEP.

SUMMARY

With the expected rise in prevalence of hearing loss over the next 40 years, hearing care that is affordable and accessible is a public health priority. As hearing loss is associated with negative outcomes for individuals with low SEP, advances in legislation and care delivery models are necessary in order to include populations traditionally unserved by current hearing healthcare.

Risk Factors for Operating Room No-Show in an Academic Otolaryngology Practice

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

A no-show to the operating room date negatively impacts a hospital and can lead to increased costs for an institution in terms of time, materials, and manpower. Our objectives are to identify the factors associated with operating room no-shows in order to increase clinical efficiency, reduce hospital costs, and increase patient access to care.

STUDY DESIGN

Single institution retrospective chart review.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all surgeries within the Otolaryngology department performed at a single tertiary academic center between 2006 and 2019. Demographic and surgical data were collected from the charts. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were performed on the data.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1,752 no-shows and 46,440 patients who did show with an overall no-show rate of 3.63%. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to compare patients who did not show for surgery to those who did. Analysis found multiple risk factors for not showing to surgery that were statistically significant (P < .05) and included decreasing age, planned outpatient case, head and neck oncology subspecialty, increasing distance from the facility, higher number of clinic no-shows, and not having private insurance. African-American race was more likely to show for surgery as scheduled.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous factors may play a role on whether or not a patient attends a scheduled surgical date. Some of these factors may be preventable or modifiable to mitigate increased hospital costs associated with no-show to surgery and increase access to care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 132:1738-1742, 2022.

Telehealth solutions for assessing auditory outcomes related to noise and ototoxic exposures in clinic and research

Nearly 1.5 billion people globally have some decline in hearing ability throughout their lifetime. Many causes for hearing loss are preventable, such as that from exposure to noise and chemicals. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 50% of individuals 12-25 years old are at risk of hearing loss due to recreational noise exposure. In the occupational setting, an estimated 16% of disabling hearing loss is related to occupational noise exposure, highest in developing countries. Ototoxicity is another cause of acquired hearing loss. Audiologic assessment is essential for monitoring hearing health and for the diagnosis and management of hearing loss and related disorders (e.g., tinnitus). However, 44% of the world's population is considered rural and, consequently, lacks access to quality hearing healthcare. Therefore, serving individuals living in rural and under-resourced areas requires creative solutions. Conducting hearing assessments via telehealth is one such solution. Telehealth can be used in a variety of contexts, including noise and ototoxic exposure monitoring, field testing in rural and low-resource settings, and evaluating auditory outcomes in large-scale clinical trials. This overview summarizes current telehealth applications and practices for the audiometric assessment, identification, and monitoring of hearing loss.

Healthcare disparities for the development of airway stenosis from the medical intensive care unit

Objectives/hypothesis

To identify sociodemographic factors associated with the development of airway stenosis (AS) among intubated medical intensive care unit (MICU) patients.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Methods

A retrospective review of adult MICU intubated patients from 2013 to 2019 at a single academic institution was performed. Univariate and multivariate analysis with logistic regression examined associations between the development of AS and subsite abnormalities such as posterior glottic stenosis (PGS), subglottic stenosis (SGS), tracheal stenosis (TS), vocal fold immobility (VFI), and posterior glottic granuloma (PGG) with age, body mass index (BMI), height, weight, race, ethnicity, sex, rurality, Appalachian status, length of admission, distance to hospital, and median household income.

Results

Of an overall sample of 6603 MICU patients, 449 intubated patients were included in the study, and 204 patients were found to have AS. AS was statistically associated with decreased driving distance to the hospital and increases in BMI. PGS was statistically associated with increases in age. TS was statistically associated with increases in admission duration and not having residence status in Appalachia. VFI was statistically associated with decreases in driving distance to the hospital and not having residence status in Appalachia. Additionally, black patients had a higher odds of developing VFI compared to Caucasian patients.

Conclusion

AS is associated with sociodemographic factors such as age, BMI, shorter distance to hospital, admission duration, and no Appalachian status. These data demonstrate the need to further investigate the impact of social determinants of health on airway pathology and outcomes.

Level of evidence

4.

Barriers to Equity in Pediatric Hearing Health Care: A Review of the Evidence

PURPOSE

We review the evidence regarding barriers to hearing health care for children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

BACKGROUND

There are considerable data to suggest that hearing health care disparities constitute a major factor in loss to follow-up or documentation for children going through the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention process. Families are affected by a combination of factors underlying these disparities, resulting in delayed care and suboptimal developmental outcomes for children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

To address the socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic inequities seen in the diagnosis and management of childhood hearing loss, pediatric audiologists and speech-language pathologists have a responsibility to provide culturally responsive practice to their individual clients and their families, as well as advocate for substantive changes at the policy level that impact their clients' daily lives.

Pediatric Amplification: A Proposed Protocol for In-Person Hearing Aid Fittings and Virtual Follow-Ups

BACKGROUND

Children with hearing loss and their families face many financial and logistical barriers to accessing audiological care. At Rush University's Student Community Outreach Program of Excellence (SCOPE), a pediatric hearing loss outreach program is under development to address and overcome those barriers through in-person hearing aid fittings and virtual follow-up appointments.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this clinical focus article was to develop a proposed protocol for SCOPE's pediatric hearing loss outreach program that would detail the use of a bimodal model of service delivery for pediatric amplification services. This clinical focus article provides a general description of the proposed protocol.

METHOD

The proposed protocol was developed as a guideline for future service delivery within SCOPE's pediatric hearing loss outreach program. Categories and details within the protocol were derived from previously published protocols and clinically relevant research.

RESULTS

The final protocol is composed of six sections, which detail the rationale and target population, necessary equipment, procedures for in-person hearing aid fittings, procedures for virtual follow-ups, outcome measures, and schedule of appointments.

DISCUSSION

On the national level, access to audiological care for pediatric patients and their families is restricted by both financial and logistical barriers. A telehealth model of service delivery has been shown to be effective in providing high-quality patient care while addressing these barriers. A clinical program using a bimodal model of service delivery will be implemented to address these barriers in Chicago, Illinois. Future investigation is required to monitor the efficacy of the program and develop program-specific materials.

Expanding Clinical Trials Designs to Extend Equitable Hearing Care

Clinical trials are critically important to translate scientific innovations into clinical practice. Hearing healthcare depends on this translational approach to improve outcomes and quality of life. Across the spectrum of healthcare, there is a lack of diverse participation in clinical trials, a failure to recruit and retain underrepresented and underserved populations, and an absence of rigorous dissemination and implementation of novel research to broader populations. The field of hearing healthcare research would benefit from expanding the types and designs of clinical trials that extend hearing healthcare and novel interventions to diverse populations, as well as emphasizing trials that evaluate factors influencing how that care can be delivered effectively. This article explores the following: (1) the role, value, and design types of clinical trials (randomized controlled, cluster randomized, stepped wedge, and mixed methods) to address health equity; (2) the importance of integrating community and stakeholder involvement; and (3) dissemination and implementation frameworks and designs for clinical trials (hybrid trial designs). By adopting a broader range of clinical trial designs, hearing healthcare researchers may be able to extend scientific discoveries to a more diverse population.

Analysis of Health Disparities in the Screening and Diagnosis of Hearing Loss: Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Hearing Screening Follow-Up Survey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to (a) provide introductory literature regarding cultural constructs, health disparities, and social determinants of health (SDoH); (b) summarize the literature regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Hearing Screening Follow-Up Survey (HSFS) data; (c) explore the CDC EHDI HSFS data regarding the contribution of maternal demographics to loss-to-follow-up/loss-to-documentation (LTF/D) between hearing screening and audiologic diagnosis for 2016, 2017, and 2018; and (d) examine these health disparities within the context of potential ethnoracial biases.

METHOD

This is a comprehensive narrative literature review of cultural constructs, hearing health disparities, and SDoH as they relate to the CDC EHDI HSFS data. We explore the maternal demographic data reported on the CDC EHDI website and report disparities for maternal age, education, ethnicity, and race for 2016, 2017, and 2018. We focus on LTF/D for screening and diagnosis within the context of racial and cultural bias.

RESULTS

A literature review demonstrates the increase in quality of the CDC EHDI HSFS data over the past 2 decades. LTF/D rates for hearing screening and audiologic diagnostic testing have improved from higher than 60% to current rates of less than 30%. Comparisons of diagnostic completion rates reported on the CDC website for the EHDI HSFS 2016, 2017, and 2018 data show trends for maternal age, education, and race, but not for ethnicity. Trends were defined as changes more than 10% for variables averaged over a 3-year period (2016-2018).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there have been significant improvements in LTF/D over the past 2 decades, there continue to be opportunities for further improvement. Beyond neonatal screening, delays continue to be reported in the diagnosis of young children with hearing loss. Notwithstanding the extraordinarily diverse families within the United States, the imperative is to minimize such delays so that all children with hearing loss can, at the very least, have auditory accessibility to spoken language by 3 months of age. Conscious awareness is essential before developing a potentially effective plan of action that might remediate the problem.

Communities Helping the Hearing of Infants by Reaching Parents (CHHIRP) through patient navigation: a hybrid implementation effectiveness stepped wedge trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

As the most common neonatal sensory disorder in the USA, infant hearing loss has an incidence of 1.7 per 1000 births. The consequences of delayed diagnosis and failure to obtain timely intervention include significant communication impairment and negative socioeconomic effects. Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) national standards dictate that all infants should be screened and diagnosed by 3 months of age and there is a need for interventions that promote adherence to timely diagnosis. Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to be efficacious to decrease non-adherence with infant hearing diagnostic care; however, PN has yet to be tested in diverse communities or implemented into real-world settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The proposed research is a community-engaged, type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of a PN intervention aimed at decreasing infant hearing diagnosis non-adherence after failed newborn hearing screening, delivered in state-funded EHDI clinics. Guided by our community advisory board and partners, we aim to (1) test the effectiveness of PN to decrease non-adherence to receipt of infant hearing diagnosis within 3 months after birth using a stepped-wedge trial design, (2) investigate implementation outcomes and factors influencing implementation and (3) determine the cost-effectiveness of PN from the perspective of third-party payers. The study will be conducted from April 2019 until March 2024.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board. Although all research involving human subjects contains some risk, there are no known serious risks anticipated from participating in this study. We will seek to disseminate our results in a systematic fashion to patients, key stakeholder, policymakers and the scientific community. Our results will impact the field by partnering with communities to inform the scale-up of this innovative patient supportive intervention to create efficient and effective EHDI programmes and maximise public health impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov (Pre-results phase): NCT03875339.

Delayed cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children-identifying barriers for targeted interventions

OBJECTIVES

Age of cochlear implantation (CI) is an important predictor of language development in those with congenital sensorineural hearing loss. Despite universal newborn hearing screening initiatives and the known benefits of early CI, a subset of congenitally deaf children continue to be evaluated for cochlear implants later in childhood. This study aims to identify the barriers to early cochlear implantation in these children.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted for all pediatric cochlear implants aged 3 years or older performed at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2017. Children implanted before the age three, those with a prior unilateral cochlear implant, and those with progressive or sudden hearing loss were excluded. Variables included newborn hearing screen results, age at hearing loss diagnosis, time of initiation and documented benefit of hearing aids, age of implantation, pre/post-implantation evaluation scores, and reason for delayed referral for cochlear implantation.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were identified meeting these inclusion criteria. Twenty-one children were subject to UNBS in the U.S. Fourteen of those children failed their newborn hearing screening. Average age at implantation was 6.2 years. Four reasons were identified for increased age at cochlear implantation. Two categories represent delays related to (1) Amplification continually prescribed even though the range of hearing loss and speech development assessment suggests CI may have been more appropriate well before referral (N = 13) (2) Patients were not subject to newborn hearing screening and/or timely diagnosis of their hearing loss (N = 8). In other cases, patients were appropriately fit with hearing aids until evidence that they derived limited benefit and then referred for CI (N = 8). Lastly, in a few cases, records were indeterminate with regards to the timing and appropriate diagnosis of their hearing loss (N = 2).

CONCLUSION

Understanding the reasons for delayed cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children might allow the development of targeted interventions to improve outcomes. Specifically, those children who were not referred before age 3 despite use of amplification with limited benefit offer one potential target population for earlier CI.

Rural Otolaryngology Care Disparities: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To broadly synthesize the literature regarding rural health disparities in otolaryngology, categorize findings, and identify research gaps to stimulate future work.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

The methods were developed in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Peer-reviewed, English-language, US-based studies examining a rural disparity in otolaryngology-related disease incidence, prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, or outcome were included. Descriptive studies, commentaries, reviews, and letters to the editor were excluded. Studies published prior to 1980 were excluded.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 1536 unique abstracts and yielded 79 studies that met final criteria for inclusion. Seventy-five percent were published after 2010. The distribution of literature was as follows: otology (34.2%), head and neck cancer (20.3%), endocrine surgery (13.9%), rhinology and allergy (8.9%), trauma (5.1%), laryngology (3.8%), other pediatrics (2.5%), and adult sleep (1.3%). Studies on otolaryngology health care systems also accounted for 10.1%. The most common topics studied were practice patterns (41%) and epidemiology (27%), while the Southeast (47%) was the most common US region represented, and database study (42%) was the most common study design.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was low-quality evidence with large gaps in the literature in all subspecialties, most notably facial plastic surgery, laryngology, adult sleep, and pediatrics. Importantly, there were few studies on intervention and zero studies on resident exposure to rural populations, which will be critical to making rural otolaryngology care more equitable in the future.

Tele-Audiology: Current State and Future Directions

The importance of tele-audiology has been heightened by the current COVID-19 pandemic. The present article reviews the current state of tele-audiology practice while presenting its limitations and opportunities. Specifically, this review addresses: (1) barriers to hearing healthcare, (2) tele-audiology services, and (3) tele-audiology key issues, challenges, and future directions. Accumulating evidence suggests that tele-audiology is a viable service delivery model, as remote hearing screening, diagnostic testing, intervention, and rehabilitation can each be completed reliably and effectively. The benefits of tele-audiology include improved access to care, increased follow-up rates, and reduced travel time and costs. Still, significant logistical and technical challenges remain from ensuring a secure and robust internet connection to controlling ambient noise and meeting all state and federal licensure and reimbursement regulations. Future research and development, especially advancements in artificial intelligence, will continue to increase tele-audiology acceptance, expand remote care, and ultimately improve patient satisfaction.

Evaluating Equity Through the Social Determinants of Hearing Health

Hearing loss in adults is a significant public health problem throughout the world. Undiagnosed and untreated hearing loss causes a measurable impact on health and social, occupational, and emotional well-being of those affected. In spite of a wide array of health care resources to identify and manage hearing loss, there exist vast disparities in outcomes, as well as access to and utilization of hearing healthcare. Hearing rehabilitation outcomes may vary widely among different populations and there is a pressing need to understand, in a broader sense, the factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which is defined by the World Health Organization as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age." According to Healthy People 2030, these determinants can be broken into the following domains: healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and built environment. This article defines these domains and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains, as it pertains to hearing health and healthcare. Herein, we review foundational sources on the social determinants of health and hearing-related research focused on the topic. Further consideration is given to how these factors can be evaluated in a systematic fashion and be incorporated into translational research and hearing health care.

Defining Disparities in Cochlear Implantation through the Social Determinants of Health

Hearing loss is a global public health problem with high prevalence and profound impacts on health. Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-established evidence-based treatment for hearing loss; however, there are significant disparities in utilization, access, and clinical outcomes among different populations. While variations in CI outcomes are influenced by innate biological differences, a wide array of social, environmental, and economic factors significantly impact optimal outcomes. These differences in hearing health are rooted in inequities of health-related socioeconomic resources. To define disparities and advance equity in CI, there is a pressing need to understand and target these social factors that influence equitable outcomes, access, and utilization. These factors can be categorized according to the widely accepted framework of social determinants of health, which include the following domains: healthcare access/quality, education access/quality, social and community context, economic stability, and neighborhood and physical environment. This article defines these domains in the context of CI and examines the published research and the gaps in research of each of these domains. Further consideration is given to how these factors can influence equity in CI and how to incorporate this information in the evaluation and management of patients receiving cochlear implants.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Access and Use: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric cochlear implantation (CI) is a multistep process, which exposes a healthcare system's potential weaknesses in ability to deliver timely care to deaf children. The current systematic review aims to determine the sociodemographic disparities that predict pediatric CI access and use among CI candidates and recipients across the world. We hypothesize that sociodemographic factors independently influence CI access and use within a given country.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases was conducted for studies investigating the association of sociodemographic factors such as race, income, or insurance status with measures of pediatric CI access, such as age at CI or CI rate.

RESULTS

Out of 807 unique abstracts initially retrieved, 39 papers were included in the final qualitative systematic review. Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-one CI-candidate children (6,623 CI recipients) were studied in 14 countries, with 21 studies conducted in the United States of America, published within the years of 1993 to 2020.

CONCLUSION

Some measures of CI access, such as age at CI and rates of CI, are consistently reported in the CI disparities literature while others such as access to rehabilitation services, willingness to undergo CI, and daily CI use are rarely measured. There are persistently reported disparities in a few key measures of CI access in a few populations, while there are some populations with a paucity of data. Future studies should delineate the nuances in the mechanisms of disparities by conducting multivariable analysis of representative sample data. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Sound Opportunities: Factors That Impact Referral for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Evaluation

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To identify barriers to and opportunities for referral among children who could be considered for cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

Audiological and medical records were reviewed on all children who had diagnostic or hearing aid care through a statewide healthcare system over 5-year span to identify children who met newly established clinical cochlear implant (CI) referral criteria. Data were collected for 869 potential CI candidates regarding demographic, socio-economic, audiological, medical, and family factors that may influence referral. A binomial logistic regression was completed to investigate the potential contributions of these predictors toward referral for a CI evaluation.

RESULTS

Children who met traditional candidacy criteria of severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss were referred at very high rates, while nontraditional candidates were referred less frequently. Factors influencing referral included race, age, insurance source, hearing thresholds, audiologist, physician, and family request.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that bilateral traditional candidates are being referred at high percentages; however, current practices and trends in pediatric cochlear implantation should be shared with families and providers to increase referral rates for nontraditional candidates.  LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Racial and Insurance Inequalities in Access to Early Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Objective

To evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and insurance status on the access to early cochlear implantation.

Study Design

Population-based retrospective analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation procedures.

Setting

State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of Florida from 2005 to 2017.

Methods

All children aged 18 years or younger in the state of Florida undergoing cochlear implantation were identified. The outcome measures were access to early cochlear implantation (before 1 and 2 years of age). Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results

Among 1511 pediatric cochlear implantation procedures with complete data, 65 (4.3%) procedures were performed by 1 year of age and 348 (23.0%) by 2 years of age. Black children (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70), Hispanic children (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94), and children with Medicaid (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84) were significantly less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age. Even when insured by private insurance, black and Hispanic children were still less likely to be implanted before 2 years of age compared to white children with private insurance. Greater racial and insurance disparities existed in access to cochlear implantation before 1 year of age compared to implantation before 2 years of age.

Conclusion

Racial/ethnic and insurance disparities in pediatric cochlear implantation can be observed at the population level. To address these racial and insurance inequalities, a multidisciplinary care team is needed and priorities should be given to research endeavors and policy interventions that target these disparities.

Barriers to Rehabilitation Care in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess barriers to rehabilitation care for pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTING

Tertiary medical center.

PATIENTS

Parents of children who received a CI from October 1996 to June 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Factors related to access to and barriers in audiology and speech therapy services, factors related to CI use, and performance with CI using the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH).

RESULTS

Thirty-five parents participated in the study (21 rural residents and 14 urban residents). Distance was a significant barrier to audiology services for rural participants compared with urban participants (p = 0.01). Consistent CI use was complicated by mechanical complications or malfunction in 70% of rural children compared with 33% of urban children (p = 0.05). Only 10% of rural children were able to access speech therapy services at diagnosis compared with 42% of urban children (p = 0.04). Low socioeconomic (SES) status and Medicaid insurance were associated with a lack of local speech therapists and medical/mechanical CI complications. Higher parental educational attainment was associated with higher PEACH scores in quiet conditions compared with families with lower parental education (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural children are often delayed in receipt of CI rehabilitation services. Multiple barriers including low SES, insurance type, and parental education can affect utilization of these services and may impact the recipient language development. Close follow-up and efforts to expand access to care are needed to maximize CI benefit.

Service accessibility for children with hearing loss in rural areas of the United States and Canada

OBJECTIVES

Children in rural areas have difficulty accessing the same services as their urban peers, which is a particular challenge in large countries such as the U.S. and Canada. Despite known problems providing services in rural areas, there is limited research investigating services for children with hearing loss living in rural areas. This scoping review examines the accessibility of services for children with hearing loss in rural U.S. and Canada.

METHODS

The search strategy included four databases and gray literature from 2008-2018. Eight government documents and 16 articles met the inclusion criteria and the main findings in the literature were themed.

RESULTS

Children with hearing loss, experienced difficulties accessing specialized services which influenced the timing of diagnosis of hearing loss, receiving hearing technology and accessing ongoing support. Families in rural areas also had access to less information about hearing loss than urban families. Managing funding and health insurance was also a challenge for families in rural areas.

CONCLUSION

The limited research in this area indicates that children with hearing loss in rural areas can experience barriers when accessing the same services as their urban peers. Limited service provision can negatively influence outcomes for children with hearing loss. Alternate service delivery such as teleintervention and visiting specialists can improve service provision in rural areas. Comprehensive research of the experience of children with hearing loss across states, provinces and territories would guide improvements to services for children with hearing loss in rural areas of the U.S. and Canada.

Audiology Telemedicine Evaluations: Potential Expanded Applications

There is underutilization of cochlear implants with delays in implantation linked to distance from implant centers. Telemedicine could connect cochlear implant specialists with patients in rural locations. We piloted telemedicine cochlear implant testing in a small study, largely composed of normal-hearing volunteers to trial this new application of teleaudiology technology. Thirteen subjects (8 with normal hearing and 5 with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound) underwent a traditional cochlear implant evaluation in person and then via telemedicine technology. Routine audiometry, word recognition testing, and Arizona Biological Test (AzBio) and consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) testing were performed. Mean (SD) percent difference in AzBio between in-person and remote testing was 1.7% (2.06%). Pure tone average (PTA), speech reception threshold (SRT), and word recognition were similar between methods. CNC testing showed a mean (SD) difference of 6.8% (10.2%) between methods. Testing conditions were acceptable to audiologists and subjects. Further study to validate this method in cochlear implant candidates and a larger population is warranted.

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.

Geographic health disparities in the Los Angeles pediatric neck abscess population

OBJECTIVE

To assess geographical sociodemographic differences in neck abscesses that require surgical drainage in Los Angeles.

STUDY DESIGN

retrospective review.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 119 consecutive pediatric patients at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) from 2014 to 2017 with a diagnosis of a neck abscess requiring incision and drainage. Sociodemographic information including zip code of residence was extracted and analyzed with Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The average age of patients with a neck abscess in this study was 3.4 years old, 53.8% were female, 54.6% were Hispanic, and 82.5% had public health insurance. 79% of patients had an abscess located in the superficial neck, and 10.1% had an abscess located in the retropharyngeal space. There were no significant differences in gender, race, type of health insurance, or income between patients that lived within 10 miles of CHLA versus those that lived farther than 10 miles. On multivariate analysis, zip codes with a high volume of neck abscesses were more likely to be lower income neighborhoods. Gender, race, type of health insurance, and distance from CHLA were not associated with zip codes with a high volume of neck abscesses.

CONCLUSION

Geographic areas in the greater Los Angeles community with a high volume of neck abscesses requiring incision and drainage at our institution were associated with lower income neighborhoods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Trends in Pediatric Otolaryngology Disparities Research

Objectives To describe trends in disparities research within pediatric otolaryngology as evidenced by major meeting presentations and to compare observed trends with those in the realm of patient safety and quality improvement (PSQI). Study Design Retrospective review of presentations at national otolaryngology meetings. Setting Online review of meeting programs. Subjects and Methods Meeting programs from the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Triological Society, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, and Society for Ear, Nose and Throat Advances in Children from 2003 to 2016 were manually searched for pediatric oral and poster presentations addressing disparities and socioeconomic determinants of health, as well as PSQI. Presentation frequency was compared between categories and within each category over time. Results Of 11,311 total presentations, 3078 were related to the pediatric population, and 1945 (63.2%) of those were oral presentations. Disparities-related presentations increased from 0 in 2003 to 17 in 2016. From 2003 to 2009, 9 of 656 (1.4%) presentations involved disparities, as opposed to 70 of 2422 (2.9%) from 2010 to 2016 ( P = .03). The proportion of presentations regarding PSQI also increased: from 42 of 656 (6.4%) in 2003-2009 to 221 of 2422 (9.1%) in 2010-2016 ( P = .01). PSQI presentations remain more common than disparities presentations (9.1% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Conclusion Health care disparities are increasingly addressed in pediatric otolaryngology meeting presentations. Compared with the well-established realm of PSQI, disparities research remains nascent but is gaining attention. Health care reform and quality improvement efforts should recognize the role of socioeconomic factors and include strategies for addressing disparities.

Disparities in access to pediatric hearing health care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are significant disparities in care facing children with hearing loss. The objective of this review is to assess the current disparities in pediatric hearing healthcare delivery, describe the barriers of efficient and effective pediatric hearing health care, and explore the innovations to improve pediatric hearing healthcare delivery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Children with hearing loss from certain geographic regions or ethnic background are significantly delayed in diagnosis and treatment. Multiple patient characteristics (presentation of hearing loss), parental factors (insurance status, socioeconomic status, educational status, and travel distance to providers), and provider barriers (specialist shortage and primary care provider challenges) prevent the delivery of timely hearing health care. Advances, such as improved screening programs and the expansion of care through remote services, may help to ameliorate these disparities.

SUMMARY

Timely identification and treatment of pediatric hearing loss is critical to prevent lifelong language complications. Children from vulnerable populations, such as rural residents, face significant disparities in care. Careful assessment of these barriers and implementation of culturally acceptable interventions are paramount to maximize communication outcomes of children with hearing loss.

Promotion of early pediatric hearing detection through patient navigation: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To assess the efficacy of a patient navigator intervention to decrease nonadherence to obtain audiological testing following failed screening, compared to those receiving the standard of care.

METHODS

Using a randomized controlled design, guardian-infant dyads, in which the infants had abnormal newborn hearing screening, were recruited within the first week after birth. All participants were referred for definitive audiological diagnostic testing. Dyads were randomized into a patient navigator study arm or standard of care arm. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with follow-up nonadherence to obtain diagnostic testing. Secondary outcomes were parental knowledge of infant hearing testing recommendations and barriers in obtaining follow-up testing.

RESULTS

Sixty-one dyads were enrolled in the study (patient navigator arm = 27, standard of care arm = 34). The percentage of participants nonadherent to diagnostic follow-up during the first 6 months after birth was significantly lower in the patient navigator arm compared with the standard of care arm (7.4% vs. 38.2%) (P = .005). The timing of initial follow-up was significantly lower in the navigator arm compared with the standard of care arm (67.9 days after birth vs. 105.9 days, P = .010). Patient navigation increased baseline knowledge regarding infant hearing loss diagnosis recommendations compared with the standard of care (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient navigation decreases nonadherence rates following abnormal infant hearing screening and improves knowledge of follow-up recommendations. This intervention has the potential to improve the timeliness of delivery of infant hearing healthcare; future research is needed to assess the cost and feasibility of larger scale implementation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b. Laryngoscope, 127:S1-S13, 2017.

Timing and Impact of Hearing Healthcare in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Rural-Urban Comparison

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the timing and impact of hearing healthcare of rural and urban adults with severe hearing loss who use cochlear implants (CI).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Adult cochlear implant recipients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collected included county of residence, socioeconomic information, impact of hearing loss on education/employment, and timing of hearing loss treatment. The benefits obtained from cochlear implantation were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 91 participants (32 from urban counties, 26 from moderately rural counties, and 33 for extremely rural counties). Rural participants have a longer commute time to the CI center (p < 0.001), lower income (p < 0.001), and higher percentage of Medicaid coverage (p = 0.004). Compared with urban-metro participants, rural participants with gradually progressive hearing loss had a greater time interval from the onset of hearing loss to obtaining hearing aid amplification (10 yr versus 5 yr, p = 0.04). There was also a greater time interval from onset of hearing loss to the time of cochlear implantation in rural participants (p = 0.04). Reported job loss was higher in rural participants than in urban participants (p = 0.05). Both groups reported comparable benefit from cochlear implantation.

CONCLUSION

Rural CI recipients differ from urban residents in socioeconomic characteristics and may be delayed in timely treatment of hearing loss. Further efforts to expand access to hearing healthcare services may benefit rural adult patients.

Rurality and determinants of hearing healthcare in adult hearing aid recipients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the timing of hearing aid (HA) acquisition between adults in rural and urban communities. We hypothesized that time of acquisition of HA after onset of hearing loss is greater in rural adults compared with urban adults. Secondary objectives included assessment of socioeconomic/educational status and impact of hearing loss and hearing rehabilitation of urban and rural HA recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire survey.

METHODS

We assessed demographics, timing of HA fitting from onset of hearing loss, and impact of hearing impairment in 336 adult HA recipients (273 urban, 63 rural) from a tertiary referral center. Amplification benefit was assessed using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI).

RESULTS

The time to HA acquisition was greater for rural participants compared to urban participants (19.1 vs. 25.7 years, P = 0.024) for those with untreated hearing loss for at least 8 years. Age at hearing loss onset was correlated with time to HA acquisition (P = -0.54, P < 0.001). Rural HA participants experienced longer commutes to hearing specialists (68 vs. 32 minutes, P < 0.001), were less likely to achieve a degree beyond high school (P < 0.001), and were more likely to possess Medicaid coverage (P = 0.012) compared to urban participants. Hearing impairment caused job performance difficulty in 60% of all participants.

CONCLUSION

Rural adults are at risk for delayed HA acquisition, which may be related to distance to hearing specialists. Further research is indicated to investigate barriers to care and expand access for vulnerable populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 127:2362-2367, 2017.

Rural Family Perspectives and Experiences with Early Infant Hearing Detection and Intervention: A Qualitative Study

Infant hearing loss has the potential to cause significant communication impairment. Timely diagnosis and intervention is essential to preventing permanent deficits. Many infants from rural regions are delayed in diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. The purpose of this study is to characterize the barriers in timely infant hearing healthcare for rural families following newborn newborn hearing screening (NHS) testing. Using stratified purposeful sampling, the study design involved semi-structured phone interviews with parents/guardians of children who failed NHS testing in the Appalachian region of Kentucky between 2012 and 2014 to describe their experiences with early hearing detection and intervention program. Thematic qualitative analysis was performed on interview transcripts to identify common recurring themes in content. 40 parents/guardians participated in the study and consisted primarily of mothers. Demographic data revealed limited educational levels of the participants and 70 % had state-funded insurance coverage. Participants reported barriers in timely infant hearing healthcare that included poor communication of hearing screening results, difficulty in obtaining outpatient testing, inconsistencies in healthcare information from primary care providers, lack of local resources, insurance-related healthcare delays, and conflict with family and work responsibilities. Most participants expressed a great desire to obtain timely hearing healthcare for their children and expressed a willingness to use resources such as telemedicine to obtain that care. There are multiple barriers to timely rural infant hearing healthcare. Minimizing misinformation and improving access to care are priorities to prevent delayed diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss.

Targeting regional pediatric congenital hearing loss using a spatial scan statistic

OBJECTIVES

Congenital hearing loss is a common problem, and timely identification and intervention are paramount for language development. Patients from rural regions may have many barriers to timely diagnosis and intervention. The purpose of this study was to examine the spatial and hospital-based distribution of failed infant hearing screening testing and pediatric congenital hearing loss throughout Kentucky.

DESIGN

Data on live births and audiological reporting of infant hearing loss results in Kentucky from 2009 to 2011 were analyzed. The authors used spatial scan statistics to identify high-rate clusters of failed newborn screening tests and permanent congenital hearing loss (PCHL), based on the total number of live births per county. The authors conducted further analyses on PCHL and failed newborn hearing screening tests, based on birth hospital data and method of screening.

RESULTS

The authors observed four statistically significant (p < 0.05) high-rate clusters with failed newborn hearing screenings in Kentucky, including two in the Appalachian region. Hospitals using two-stage otoacoustic emission testing demonstrated higher rates of failed screening (p = 0.009) than those using two-stage automated auditory brainstem response testing. A significant cluster of high rate of PCHL was observed in Western Kentucky. Five of the 54 birthing hospitals were found to have higher relative risk of PCHL, and two of those hospitals are located in a very rural region of Western Kentucky within the cluster.

CONCLUSIONS

This spatial analysis in children in Kentucky has identified specific regions throughout the state with high rates of congenital hearing loss and failed newborn hearing screening tests. Further investigation regarding causative factors is warranted. This method of analysis can be useful in the setting of hearing health disparities to focus efforts on regions facing high incidence of congenital hearing loss.

Pediatric Hearing Healthcare in Kentucky's Appalachian Primary Care Setting

Diagnosis and intervention for infant hearing loss is often delayed in areas of healthcare disparity, such as rural Appalachia. Primary care providers play a key role in timely hearing healthcare. The purpose of this study was to assess the practice patterns of rural primary care providers (PCPs) regarding newborn hearing screening (NHS) and experiences with rural early hearing diagnosis and intervention programs in an area of known hearing healthcare disparity. Cross sectional questionnaire study. Appalachian PCP's in Kentucky were surveyed regarding practice patterns and experiences regarding the diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss. 93 Appalachian primary care practitioners responded and 85% reported that NHS is valuable for pediatric health. Family practitioners were less likely to receive infant NHS results than pediatricians (54.5 versus 95.2%, p < 0.01). A knowledge gap was identified in the goal ages for diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss. Pediatrician providers were more likely to utilize diagnostic testing compared with family practice providers (p < 0.001). Very rural practices (Beale code 7-9) were less likely to perform hearing evaluations in their practices compared with rural practices (Beale code 4-6) (p < 0.001). Family practitioners reported less confidence than pediatricians in counseling and directing care of children who fail newborn hearing screening. 46% felt inadequately prepared or completely unprepared to manage children who fail the NHS. Rural primary care providers face challenges in receiving communication regarding infant hearing screening and may lack confidence in directing and providing rural hearing healthcare for children.

Rural barriers to early diagnosis and treatment of infant hearing loss in Appalachia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess regional parental barriers in the diagnostic and therapeutic process after abnormal newborn hearing screening (NHS) testing.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTING

Tertiary medical center.

PATIENTS

Parents of infants who failed NHS in Kentucky from January 2009 to February 2012.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Demographic information, county of origin, attitudes and perceptions regarding NHS, and barriers in the NHS diagnostic process.

RESULTS

There were 460 participants in the study, which included 25.4% of parents from the Appalachian region. Twenty-one percent of Appalachian parents found the process on newborn hearing testing difficult. Appalachian parents were more likely to have no more than 12 years of education (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; p = 0.02) and Medicaid insurance (OR, 2.3; p < 0.001) compared with non-Appalachian parents. A higher percentage of Appalachian parents were unaware of the NHS results at the time of hospital discharge than non-Appalachians (14% versus 7%, p = 0.03). Distance from the diagnostic/therapeutic center represented was a significant barrier for Appalachian parents (OR, 2.8; p = 0.001). Compared with urban parents, a greater percentage of rural parents had never heard of a cochlear implant (p = 0.01). Appalachian parents expressed a strong interest in telemedicine and a desire for closer services.

CONCLUSION

Multiple barriers including education, distance, accessibility, and socioeconomic factors can affect timely diagnosis and treatment of congenital hearing loss for children residing in rural areas. Educational and telemedicine programs may benefit parents in Appalachia as well as parents in other rural areas.