Rural Adult Perspectives on Impact of Hearing Loss and Barriers to Care

"Close to My Community": A Qualitative Study of Community Health Worker-Supported Teleaudiology Hearing Aid Services

OBJECTIVES

Given well-documented disparities in rural and minority communities, alternative service delivery models that help improve access to hearing care are needed. This article reports on a study of older Latino adults with hearing loss who received hearing aid services with Community Health Workers (CHWs) providing support via teleaudiology. The present study used qualitative data to explore perceptions of this novel service delivery model.

DESIGN

Participants completed semistructured interviews related to their experiences in the intervention approximately 17 weeks after the hearing aid fitting appointment. Two coders independently coded the data, using an iterative deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach. Inter-rater reliability was good (κ = 0.80).

RESULTS

Of the 28 participants, 19 were interviewed (CHW group: n = 9, 8 females; non-CHW group: n = 10, 9 females). Both groups of participants reported experiencing barriers in access to care and reported positive experiences with teleaudiology and with hearing aids as part of the trial. CHW group participants reported interactions with patient-site facilitators that were indicative of patient-centeredness.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate the feasibility and potential effectiveness of trained CHWs as patient-site facilitators in teleaudiology-delivered hearing aid services for adults.

Demographic Disparities in Drive Times to the Nearest Audiologist in the United States

PURPOSE

Audiological services are underused, possibly because patients need to drive long distances to see a provider. In this study, we measured the association of drive times to the nearest audiologist with population density, income, ethnicity, race, and distance to the nearest audiology graduate program.

METHOD

Drive times for each census block group to the nearest audiologist were measured using census data, the National Provider Identifier Registry, and a geographic analyzing tool called ArcGIS for all block groups within the United States. The association between drive times and population density, income, ethnicity, race, and audiology program distance was evaluated with a population density-matched case-control study and multiple linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Approximately 5.29 million Americans need to drive at least 1 hr to visit their closest audiologist. The 10% most rural-dwelling Americans drive an average of 33.8 min. The population density-matched case-control study demonstrated that percent below poverty, percent identifying as Hispanic, and travel times to the nearest audiology program were all significantly higher in census block groups with high drive times to the nearest audiologist. An average of 7.96% of individuals in census block groups with low drive times identified as Hispanic, but 18.8% identified as Hispanic in high drive time groups. The multiple linear regression showed that the effect of demographics and distance to the nearest audiology program was highest in rural areas. In both analyses, adjusting for poverty did not drastically change the effect of percent identifying as Hispanic on drive times.

CONCLUSIONS

Long drive times restrict access to audiological care for those who live in rural areas. This restriction disproportionately affects those in rural areas who identify as Hispanic or have low income.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Demographic Representation in Clinical Research Relative to a Cochlear Implant Patient Population

OBJECTIVES

Research samples that are representative of patient populations are needed to ensure the generalizability of study findings. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of a study design and recruitment strategy in obtaining a participant sample that was representative of the broader cochlear implant (CI) patient population at the CI center. A secondary aim was to review whether the CI recipient population was representative of the state population.

METHODS

Demographic variables were compared for a research participant sample (n = 79) and the CI patient population (n = 338). The participant sample was recruited from the CI patient population. The study design included visits that were at the same location and frequency as the recommended clinical follow-up intervals. The demographics for the combined group (participant sample and patient population) were then compared to the reported demographics for the population in North Carolina.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the participant sample and patient population for biological sex, age at implantation, racial distribution, socioeconomic position, degree of urbanization, or drive time to the CI center (p ≥ 0.086). The combined CI recipient population was significantly different from the North Carolina population for the distributions of race, ethnicity, and degree of urbanization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study design and recruitment strategy allowed for recruitment of a participant sample that was representative of the CI patient population. Disparities in access to cochlear implantation persist, as supported by the significant differences in the combined CI recipient population and the population for our state.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

Breaking Sound Barriers: Exploring Tele-Audiology's Impact on Hearing Healthcare

Hearing impairment is a global issue, affecting billions of people; however, there is a gap between the population affected by hearing loss and those able to access hearing healthcare. Tele-audiology, the application of telemedicine in audiology, serves as a new form of technology which aims to provide synchronous or asynchronous hearing healthcare. In this article, we reviewed some recent studies of tele-audiology-related topics to have a glimpse of the current development, associated challenges, and future advancement. Through the utilization of tele-audiology, patients can conveniently access hearing healthcare, and thus save travel costs and time. Recent studies indicate that remote hearing screening and intervention are non-inferior to the performance of traditional clinical pathways. However, despite its potential benefits, the implementation of tele-audiology faces numerous challenges, and audiologists have varying attitudes on this technology. Overcoming obstacles such as high infrastructure costs, limited reimbursement, and the lack of quality standards calls for concerted efforts to develop effective strategies. Ethical concerns, reimbursement, and patient privacy are all crucial aspects requiring in-depth discussion. Enhancing the education and training of students and healthcare workers, along with providing relevant resources, will contribute to a more efficient, systematic hearing healthcare. Future research will aim to develop integrated models with evidence-based protocols and incorporating AI to enhance the affordability and accessibility of hearing healthcare.

Hearing aid utilization in Ontario - a population based study

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is one of the most common sensory impairments and hearing aids are the most common unmet assistive device need among individuals with a disability. The benefits of hearing interventions are well-documented as they are known to deter the sequalae of hearing loss including social isolation, poor mental health, falls and cognitive decline. Identifying trends in hearing aid users can provide valuable information for improving access to hearing loss interventions.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from ICES databases that were used to generate a cohort of 372,448 individuals in Ontario, Canada, who first claimed hearing aids between April 2007 and March 2018 through the Assistive Devices Program.

RESULTS

The data indicated that the frequency distribution of hearing aids has steadily inclined since 2007. The mean age of hearing aid users was 70.25 ± 14.70 years and higher neighbourhood income quintile was associated with greater hearing aid use (p < 0.001). Most first claims occurred after visiting primary care physicians (70.60%) compared with otolaryngology (13.39%). An examination of clinical comorbidities revealed hypertension (63.41%), and diabetes (24.93%) to be the most common. Regression analysis demonstrated a positive associated between age and most comorbidities. Furthermore, higher neighbourhood income quintiles were associated with a reduced risk of having the examined comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines patient demographics and clinical comorbidities in a cohort of hearing aid users in Ontario. The results identify associations between demographics and comorbidities that provide information relevant for improving access to hearing interventions and clinical decision-making in primary care.Implications for RehabilitationScreening for hearing loss (using an audiogram) in elderly individuals that manage multiple comorbidities, and any patient with significant risk factors for hearing loss (e.g., noise exposure history, prior ototoxic medications, prior head injury, history of ear surgery, family history of hearing loss) will identify deficits and direct appropriate hearing interventions.Improving access to care in low-income communities should include community-based education around expectation management and communication strategies to reinforce proper use and care of hearing devices.Geographic proximity to hearing testing facilities and hearing aid dispensaries is a significant barrier to hearing rehabilitation strategies.

Remote self-report and speech-in-noise measures predict clinical audiometric thresholds

Developments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry. DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal-hearing (NH, N=16) and hearing loss (HL, N=18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two digit phases (diotic, antiphasic). High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores, and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test the best predictor, explaining 50% of variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test. This study shows that remote SSQ-12 and remote-DIN are sensitive tools for capturing important aspects of auditory function.

Healthcare Disparities in Otolaryngology

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to summarize some of the recent research studies on healthcare disparities across various subspecialties within otolaryngology. This review also highlights the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on disparities and proposes potential interventions to mitigate disparities.

Recent Findings

Significant healthcare disparities in care and treatment outcomes have been reported across all areas of otolaryngology. Notable differences in survival, disease recurrence, and overall mortality have been noted based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), insurance status, etc. This is most well-researched in head and neck cancer (HNC) within otolaryngology.

Summary

Healthcare disparities have been identified by numerous research studies within otolaryngology for many vulnerable groups that include racial and ethnic minority groups, low-income populations, and individuals from rural areas among many others. These populations continue to experience suboptimal access to timely, quality otolaryngologic care that exacerbate disparities in health outcomes.

How chronic ear disease affects quality of life: a qualitative research study in Nepal

OBJECTIVE

Hearing loss is the third leading cause globally for 'years lived with disability'. The majority of those affected live in low and middle-income countries.

METHOD

This study used qualitative research methods to explore the impact of chronic ear disease on quality of life in Nepal. Twenty face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted during a visiting ear camp at the Britain Nepal Otology Service Ear Care Centre in Nepal. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated with thematic content analysis performed manually by two researchers.

RESULTS

Chronic ear disease has a significant impact on social interactions, emotional well-being and functionality. Barriers to surgery are cost, accessibility, reputation, gender and fear of complications.

CONCLUSION

This study provided valuable new insight into patient perspectives on living with chronic ear disease in Nepal. Patients with chronic ear disease experience discrimination and stigmatisation across all levels of personal, family and social life, with their function across all domains being directly limited by symptoms.

Core Values in the Traditional Provision of Hearing Health Care

PURPOSE

Untreated hearing loss is a significant public health issue affecting the quality of life of millions of Americans. Barriers to treatment invite novel and innovation solutions, but as these solutions create new treatment delivery models, they also may-purposefully or accidentally-challenge the values of the field.

METHOD

Value-sensitive design methodology is used in this study to identify the values in current hearing health care service delivery. We performed qualitative content analysis of questionnaires, clinical practice guidelines, and professional ethics documents that represent the intended and enacted values in audiology.

RESULTS

The result is a comprehensive list of values that can be used as a structured codebook for systematic textual analysis of materials representing current best practices in the provision of hearing health care services. A secondary result is an analysis of the relative importance of values in audiology, inferred from the frequency of references to each value.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjective benefit, professional duties, and self-efficacy were the core values identified in the current provision of audiologic care, and these values should be central to considerations for new hearing health care models and technologies.

Hearing Health Outcomes as a Function of Age, Gender, and Diversity

The United States does not ensure equitable access to hearing health care for all age groups, largely because these services are costly and even unobtainable in some places. Barriers to care are discussed within a context of the social determinants of health, under-representativeness of hearing-care professionals from historically marginalized communities, older adults and age-related hearing loss, and associated health conditions. The MarkeTrak 2022 study generated a sample of 15,138 respondents with information on 43,597 individuals. Data analysis revealed that self-reported hearing difficulty appears to increase with age with a rate of 12.4% for adults 18 years of age and older. A substantial proportion of individuals with hearing difficulty assumed that their problem was age-related, followed by exposure to loud sound and noise. Individuals with hearing difficulty were nearly three to four times more likely to have tinnitus, cognitive problems, and issues with balance and falling than those with no hearing problems. Self-reported hearing difficulty was lower for historically marginalized groups (7%) than for the White population (12%). Recommendations are presented to reduce the burden of hearing difficulty and hearing aid deserts for rural and urban populations.

Perception and expectations of personal sound amplification products in Korea: A hospital-based, multi-center, cross-sectional survey

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate current perception and expected price of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) and to analyze influencing factors through multi-center hospital-based surveys of outpatients, caregivers, and hearing experts.

Methods

A multi-center exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted in two groups of respondents with two separate surveys: 1) a perception survey of patients and caregivers who visited an otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic in 5 general hospitals and 2) an opinion survey of hearing specialists about the expected price of PSAPs. A total of 197 outpatient visitors responded to the perception survey, and 42 hearing specialists responded to the opinion survey.

Results

Overall perception score (18 questions) was 3.04 (95% CI, 3.00–3.09). When 5 categories of perception (knowledge, needs, cost, expectation, and information categories) were analyzed, cost and expectation showed the highest scores of 3.33 (95% CI, 3.21–3.44) and 3.33 (95% CI, 3.27–3.40), respectively, and needs showed the lowest score of 2.23 (95% CI, 1.97–2.49). The ≥ 60-year-old group showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002), and the individuals with greater severity of subjective hearing loss showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002). The expected price of PSAPs of the outpatient visitors was 933.9 USD (95% CI, 811.9–1056.0) per ear. Mean expected price of PSAPs of hearing specialists was 291.3 USD (95% CI, 238.2–344.3) per ear.

Conclusion

The perception rate of PSAPs was very low, and there was a discrepancy in the expected price of PSAPs between patients/caregivers and hearing experts. Hearing specialists should make effort to improve perception of PSAPs.

Prevalence of Self-Reported Hearing Loss and Associated Risk Factors: Findings From the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of self-reported hearing loss and associated risk factors in a representative population-based study of Wisconsin residents.

METHOD

Survey of the Health of Wisconsin participants with data on self-reported hearing loss were included. We reported prevalence of self-reported hearing loss with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, and stratified by age and sex. Age- and sex-adjusted and multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate determinants of self-reported hearing loss, and results are presented as odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

There were 2,767 participants (50.7% men) with a mean age of 46 years (range: 21-74) in this study. Prevalence of self-reported hearing loss was 26.8% (24.4, 28.4) and was higher in men (30.3% [27.1, 33.4]) than in women (22.5% [19.9, 25.0]). Prevalence increased with age. After multivariable adjustment, age (per +1 year increase; 1.05 [1.04, 1.06]), male sex (1.57 [1.18, 2.08]), having two chronic diseases (vs. 0; 1.93 [1.16, 3.23]), occupational (2.47 [1.91, 3.19]) and recreational (1.58 [1.22, 2.04]) noise exposure, and poor diet (1.88 [1.28, 2.78]) were associated with higher odds of self-reported hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent public health concern and may be at least partially modifiable via interventions to reduce noise exposure and promote health. Statewide prevalence and risk factor data can be used to inform public health practice and promote hearing loss prevention.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19661130.

New Pathways for Successfully Reducing Health Inequities Experienced by the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

In this Invited Commentary, the author briefly reviews 3 articles from this issue of Academic Medicine that serve as a welcome addition to the literature in the quest to reduce the significant health inequities experienced by the Deaf and hard of hearing (DHoH) community. The author connects these articles to his own story as a DHoH medical student navigating the medical education system and also to his perspective as a practicing family medicine physician in a rural community health center. The path to bridging these health inequities is multifactorial. This includes identifying and eliminating barriers to increasing DHoH physician representation in the workforce, enhancing DHoH cultural competency in medical education, and using advances in technology through the creation of communication access plans and language access teams in hospitals and medical clinics for DHoH patients.

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.

Health Disparities in Otology: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Social determinants of health (SDOHs), including but not limited to sex, race, socioeconomic status, insurance status, and education level, play a significant role in health disparities and affect health outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine health disparities in otology within the United States and highlight areas warranting further research.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE.

REVIEW METHODS

Our search encompassed all years through January 10, 2021. All peer-reviewed primary literature of any design and publication date regarding health disparities and otology outcomes in the United States was eligible for inclusion. Eligibility assessment was performed via 3 independent investigators.

RESULTS

Of the 6326 unique abstracts identified, 188 studies underwent full-text review, and 52 remained in the final review. The most frequently examined otologic condition was hearing loss (36.5%), followed by cochlear implantation (28.8%) and infection/effusion (15.4%). Vertigo/dizziness (1.9%), Ménière's disease (1.9%), and tinnitus (1.9%) were the least represented otologic conditions. Comprehensive articles on multiple disparity topics were the most common (n = 18), followed by articles on race/ethnicity (n = 11) and socioeconomic status (n = 9). Language (n = 2), education (n = 2), and gender (n = 1) were the least discussed. Over 5-fold the number of articles were published between 2011 and 2020 compared to the preceding decade (42 vs 8).

CONCLUSION

This study captures the existing literature regarding health disparities and outcomes in otology. The lack of robust data suggests the need for future quality studies aimed at investigating disparities in otologic care, as well as a broader push for recording and reporting SDOHs.

Feasibility of community health workers as teleaudiology patient-site facilitators: a multilevel training study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the feasibility of a multi-level teleaudiology patient-site facilitator training program for Community Health Workers (CHWs) at a partnering health centre in southern Arizona.

DESIGN

Three levels were offered: Introductory, with basic information on hearing loss and teleaudiology; Intermediate, on technology, team roles, and access issues; and Facilitator, on further knowledge and hands-on skills to serve as patient-site facilitators in synchronous hearing aid service delivery. Six domains of feasibility were addressed using a mixed-methods design. Quantitative data included survey responses and observation of hands-on skills. Qualitative data included field notes from group discussion and open-ended survey questions, and were analysed using CHW core competencies.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twelve CHWs participated in the introductory training, ten moved on to intermediate, and three continued to the facilitator.

RESULTS

Quantitative outcomes indicated that the trainings were feasible according to each of the six domains. CHWs in the facilitator training passed the practical hands-on skill assessment. Qualitative analyses revealed CHWs comments addressed eight of the ten possible CHW core competencies, and focussed on service coordination/navigation, and capacity building.

CONCLUSIONS

Teleaudiology trainings for CHWs were feasible, increasing service capacity for a potential pathway to improve access to hearing health care in low-resource areas.

Accessibility to Hearing Healthcare in Rural and Urban Populations of Alabama: Perspectives and A Preliminary Roadmap for Addressing Inequalities

Hearing loss is a growing public health concern and has been associated with poor cardiovascular health, diabetes, increased social isolation and poor cognitive functioning. Addressing this issue, especially in rural communities, will require increased awareness of hearing loss and its link to emotional and physical well-being. The purpose of this study was to understand the challenges that those with hearing loss living in rural and urban communities experience and to examine the feasibility of using primary care physicians to assist with improving access to hearing healthcare in rural communities. One hundred thirty-four participants were recruited from rural and urban counties in West Central and South Alabama. All participants completed a hearing evaluation and a Healthcare and Hearing Healthcare Accessibility Questionnaire. Over half of the adults in the study with hearing loss did not have access to hearing healthcare because of distance to a hearing healthcare professional. Other reasons for participants not having access to hearing healthcare included financial constraints, lack of awareness of having a hearing loss, lack of time to see a hearing healthcare provider, and not knowing how to access a provider. Results, however, revealed that most adults in the study had access to a primary care professional. The primary care provider, therefore, could be a valuable resource for the dissemination of information related to hearing healthcare. Collaborative work with primary care providers will help to develop and expand hearing healthcare awareness, research and services provided through the Here Hear Alabama project, a rural outreach initiative in West Central and South Alabama.

Applied tele-audiology research in clinical practice during the past decade: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was two-fold, (1) to provide information about the characteristics, type of service delivery, participant information and outcomes related to tele-audiology in clinical popluations, and (2) to describe documented facilitators and barriers to tele-audiology delivery from the perspectives of practitioners and service recipients. Knowledge of these findings can assist audiologists in considering remote service delivery options for their practices.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in November 2019 to identify English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published from 1 January 2010 to 30 October 2019 related to remote clinical service delivery in audiology.

RESULTS

Thirty-six published research articles were included. Research studies were classified into four broad areas with some articles including more than one area within the scope of their article: Screening (n = 5), Diagnostic (n = 5), Intervention (n = 18), and Perspectives (n = 22).

CONCLUSION

Hearing healthcare service delivery is expanding with the changing technological landscape, providing greater opportunities and flexibility for audiologists and patients. There are clear opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and for collaboration with on-site local facilitators. Local facilitators, with training, can assist in connecting individuals to follow-up care, provide educational support, and needed hands-on assistance for specialised testing.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Otolaryngology: The State of Illinois

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To highlight rural-urban disparities in otolaryngology, and to quantify the disparities in access to otolaryngology specialist care across Illinois. Several studies across disciplines have shown increased prevalence and severity of disease in rural communities, relative to their urban counterparts. There is very little published quantifying a disparity in rural access to otolaryngologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Population study.

METHODS

Counties in Illinois were classified based on urbanization level on a scale from I (most urban) to VI (least urban) using the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural Classification scheme. The six urbanization levels include four metropolitan (I-IV) and two nonmetropolitan levels (V and VI). The name and practice location of all registered otolaryngologists in Illinois were collected using the American Academy of Otolaryngology website (ENTnet.org). Population data were recorded from the most recent US Census (2010).

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-eight academy-registered otolaryngologists were identified in Illinois. One hundred fifty-one of these providers were located in a single county categorized as a level I by the NCHS scheme. There are over 18,000 square miles and 600,000 persons living in NCHS level VI counties in Illinois with zero registered otolaryngologists. Overall, metropolitan counties (I-IV) averaged 1.32 otolaryngologists per 100,000 population, whereas nonmetropolitan counties (V and VI) averaged 0.46 otolaryngologists per 100,000 (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of academy-certified otolaryngologists with primary practice locations in rural counties of Illinois. There is a significant rural population and massive land area with limited spatial access to otolaryngologic specialist care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 131:E70-E75, 2021.