Pilot study of a high-frequency school-based hearing screen to detect adolescent hearing loss

School health systems under strain: an example of COVID-19 experiences & burnout among school health staff in Pima County, Arizona

BACKGROUND

School health staff lead and provide a variety of care for children in schools. As school districts have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic, school health staff have faced unprecedented challenges in protecting the health of students and school staff. Our objective was to qualitatively characterize these pandemic challenges and experiences of school health staff in Pima County, Arizona to identify gaps in school health staff support for improving future emergency preparedness.

METHODS

We conducted two focus group discussions (FGDs) with 48 school health staff in Pima County, Arizona in two school districts using a discussion guide including ten open-ended questions. The FGDs were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used the socioecological model (SEM) to organize the thematic analysis and generate codes and themes; data were analyzed using Atlas.ti software.

FINDINGS

The pandemic has significantly challenged school health staff with new pandemic-related job tasks: managing isolation, vaccination, and developing/implementing new and evolving COVID-19 guidelines. School health staff also reported increased stress related to interactions with parents and school administration as well as frustrations with rapid changes to guidance from the health department and policy makers. A common issue was not having enough staff or resources to complete regular job responsibilities, such as providing care for students with non-COVID-19 related health issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased workload for school health staff resulted in physical burnout, mental distress, and disruption of core functions with long term implications for children's health. These focus groups highlight the need for improved emergency preparedness in schools during pandemics or infectious disease outbreaks. These include basic infrastructure changes (e.g., personnel support from health departments for tasks such as contact tracing to enable school nurses to continue core functions), and increased funding to allow for hazard pay and more school health personnel during emergency situations. In addition, basic school health infrastructure is lacking, and we should include a licensed school health nurse in every school.

The current state of international research on the effectiveness of school nurses in promoting the health of children and adolescents: An overview of reviews

OBJECTIVE

School nurses are engaging worldwide to promote and protect children's health. Many researchers who examined the effectiveness of the school nurse criticized the inadequate methodology employed in many of the studies. We therefore carried out an evaluation on the effectiveness of school nurses based on a rigorous methodological approach.

METHODS

In this overview of reviews we performed an electronic databank search and global research results on the effectiveness of school nurses were sought. We identified 1,494 records through database search. Abstracts and full texts were screened and summarized using the dual control principle. We summarized the aspects of quality criteria as well as the significance of the effectiveness of the school nurse. In the first step, k = 16 systematic reviews were summarized and evaluated following the AMSTAR-2 guidelines. In a second step, j = 357 primary studies included in these k = 16 reviews were summarized and assessed following the GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Research results on the effectiveness of school nurses show that school nurses play a key role in improving the health of children with asthma (j = 6) and diabetes (j = 2), results on combating obesity are less certain (j = 6). The quality of identified reviews is mostly very low with only six studies of medium quality, of which one identified as a meta-analysis. A total of j = 289 primary studies were identified. Approximately 25% (j = 74) of identified primary studies were either randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies, of which roughly 20% (j = 16) had a low risk of bias. Studies with physiological variables such as blood glucose or asthma labeling led to higher quality results.

CONCLUSION

This paper represents an initial contribution and recommends further evaluation of the effectiveness of school nurses, particularly in the areas of mental health or children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The general lack of quality standards in school nursing research should be integrated into the scientific discourse of school nursing researchers to provide robust evidence for policy planners and researchers.

A Smartphone Application and Education Program for Hearing Health Promotion in High School Teenagers

OBJECTIVES

To assess knowledge retention after video-based hearing health education and measure headphone listening behavior change using a novel smartphone application.

METHODS

In this prospective longitudinal study, students participated in video-based hearing health education and hearing screening sessions. Hearing health knowledge was assessed in students and parents after 6 weeks. A novel smartphone application was created to measure daily noise exposure based on volume settings with headphone use and to display the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noise doses with alerts for cumulative daily doses nearing the maximum.

RESULTS

Seventy-six teenage students and parents participated. Eighty three percent of participants identified as a racial or ethnic minority and 66% were of low-income socioeconomic status. Hearing health knowledge was retained in students 6 weeks after education and parents' knowledge improved from baseline. The smartphone app was installed on 12 student phones, and 25% of days monitored exhibited noise doses that exceeded the NIOSH maximum. App use for at least 10 days by nine students showed a significant reduction in average daily noise dose and time spent at the highest volume settings during the second-half of app use.

CONCLUSIONS

Video-based hearing health education with knowledge question reinforcement was associated with knowledge retention in students and improved parental attitudes and knowledge about hearing conservation. A smartphone app with a real-time display of headphone cumulative noise exposure dose identified at-risk students. The integration of hearing health education, hearing screening, and digital health tools has promised to promote positive behavior changes for long-term hearing conservation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2022.

How the World's Children Hear: A Narrative Review of School Hearing Screening Programs Globally

Objective

School hearing screening may mitigate the effects of childhood hearing loss through early identification and intervention. This study provides an overview of existing school hearing screening programs around the world, identifies gaps in the literature, and develops priorities for future research.

Data Sources

A structured search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases.

Review Methods

A total of 65 articles were included according to predefined inclusion criteria. Parameters of interest included age groups screened, audiometric protocols, referral criteria, use of adjunct screening tests, rescreening procedures, hearing loss prevalence, screening test sensitivity and specificity, and loss to follow-up.

Conclusions

School hearing screening is mandated in few regions worldwide, and there is little accountability regarding whether testing is performed. Screening protocols differ in terms of screening tests included and thresholds used. The most common protocols included a mix of pure tone screening (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), otoscopy, and tympanometry. Estimates of region-specific disease prevalence were methodologically inaccurate, and rescreening was poorly addressed. Loss to follow-up was also a ubiquitous concern.

Implications for Practice

There is an urgent need for standardized school hearing screening protocol guidelines globally, which will facilitate more accurate studies of hearing loss prevalence and determination of screening test sensitivity and specificity. In turn, these steps will increase the robustness with which we can study the effects of screening and treatment interventions, and they will support the development of guidelines on the screening, diagnostic, and rehabilitation services needed to reduce the impact of childhood hearing loss.

Exploring School Nurse Interventions and Health and Education Outcomes: An Integrative Review

School nurses intervene with students, parents, and school staff to advance the health and academic success of students. We conducted an integrative literature review of published research to describe the types of school nurse interventions and health and education outcome measures and to examine how school nurse interventions were linked to student outcomes. Sixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. We used the National Association of School Nurses' Framework for 21st Century School Nursing Practice to categorize school nurse interventions and health and education outcome measures. The majority of interventions were categorized under the care coordination principle, most commonly, motivational interviewing and counseling. In 17 studies, school nurse interventions were linked to improved student outcomes. Most studies (80%) were descriptive. To advance school nursing science, researchers can build on this foundation with more rigorous research methods to evaluate the impact of school nurse interventions and activities on student health and education outcomes.

Perceptions of public primary school teachers regarding noise-induced hearing loss in South Africa

Background

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is an increasingly growing problem in young children. This is attributed to recreational noise being the most common cause of this problem. In young children, hearing problems can delay language development and reduce academic achievements. South Africa, in particular, has limited information and protective measures regarding the conservation of hearing in school-aged children.

Objectives

The main aim of the study was to determine the perception of primary school teachers regarding NIHL. The study also aimed to determine if any hearing conservation programmes are being implemented in schools and the need for training of primary school teachers regarding NIHL.

Method

A survey was conducted. In order to cover the population of interest, the sampled schools in Pretoria were clustered into urban, semi-urban and rural areas.

Results

The majority of the teachers included in this study are aware of NIHL and its effects. They, however, lack the necessary resources and knowledge to effectively use this information. Most (67.5%) of the teachers indicated that they have never been exposed to children with NIHL in a school setting. It was also found that the majority (84%) of the schools included in the study do not implement hearing screening and conservation programmes.

Conclusion

Although the sample size was limited, the results correlate with other research in this field indicating a need for planning and implementation of hearing conservation programmes in schools, including training of teachers in order for these programmes to be effective.

The Sensitivity of Adolescent School-Based Hearing Screens Is Significantly Improved by Adding High Frequencies

High frequency hearing loss (HFHL), often related to hazardous noise, affects one in six U.S. adolescents. Yet, only 20 states include school-based hearing screens for adolescents. Only six states test multiple high frequencies. Study objectives were to (1) compare the sensitivity of state school-based hearing screens for adolescents to gold standard sound-treated booth testing and (2) consider the effect of adding multiple high frequencies and two-step screening on sensitivity/specificity. Of 134 eleventh-grade participants (2013-2014), 43 of the 134 (32%) did not pass sound-treated booth testing, and 27 of the 43 (63%) had HFHL. Sensitivity/specificity of the most common protocol (1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hz at 20 dB HL) for these hearing losses was 25.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [13.5, 41.2]) and 85.7% (95% CI [76.8, 92.2]), respectively. A protocol including 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 Hz at 20 dB HL significantly improved sensitivity to 76.7% (95% CI [61.4, 88.2]), p < .001. Two-step screening maintained specificity (84.6%, 95% CI [75.5, 91.3]). Adolescent school-based hearing screen sensitivity improves with high frequencies.

The Sensitivity of Adolescent Hearing Screens Significantly Improves by Adding High Frequencies

PURPOSE

One in 6 US adolescents has high-frequency hearing loss, often related to hazardous noise. Yet, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hearing screen (500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hertz) primarily includes low frequencies (<3,000 Hertz). Study objectives were to determine (1) sensitivity and specificity of the AAP hearing screen for adolescent hearing loss and (2) if adding high frequencies increases sensitivity, while repeat screening of initial referrals reduces false positive results (maintaining acceptable specificity).

METHODS

Eleventh graders (n = 134) participated in hearing screening (2013-2014) including "gold-standard" sound-treated booth testing to calculate sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Of the 43 referrals, 27 (63%) had high-frequency hearing loss. AAP screen sensitivity and specificity were 58.1% (95% confidence interval 42.1%-73.0%) and 91.2% (95% confidence interval 83.4-96.1), respectively. Adding high frequencies (6,000, 8,000 Hertz) significantly increased sensitivity to 79.1% (64.0%-90.0%; p = .003). Specificity with repeat screening was 81.3% (71.8%-88.7%; p = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescent hearing screen sensitivity improves with high frequencies. Repeat testing maintains acceptable specificity.

Certified School Nurse Perspectives on State-Mandated Hearing Screens

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15% of children in the United States 6-19 years of age have hearing loss. Even mild, unilateral hearing loss may adversely affect educational success. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) began updating the 2001 regulations on state-mandated school hearing screens. To inform the updates, a needs assessment was conducted with PA-certified school nurses (CSNs) regarding current screening practice and potential barriers to making changes.

METHODS

A 42-item electronic survey of CSNs developed with pediatricians, audiologists, nurses, and the PA DOH was administered in October 2014.

RESULTS

There were 536 completed surveys. Most CSNs (50.8%) screened 251-500 students annually. Only 35.8% strictly followed PA DOH protocol, while 51.6% followed protocol and added nonguideline frequencies. Over half of screens (60.2%) were conducted in places where other people were present. Most CSNs (82.5%) reported annual audiometer calibration, but 92.4% were unsure whether the calibration was exhaustive or limited. Reported barriers to change included time, cost, and staffing.

CONCLUSIONS

As most CSNs added frequencies to the PA DOH hearing screen, an update with added frequencies should be well accepted. Clarification regarding test environment and exhaustive audiometer calibration is needed. Adherence to best practice may be optimized by addressing CSN reported barriers to change.

Current office-based hearing screening questions fail to identify adolescents at risk for hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

There is a rising prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents in the United States. Current paediatric preventive care recommendations by the Bright Futures guidelines and the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest that clinicians should ask adolescents ten hearing screening questions to identify those who are at high risk of hearing loss for further objective hearing testing. We assessed the utility of these subjective risk assessment questions to distinguish those adolescents with objectively documented hearing loss.

SETTING

A single public high school in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We compared results from a prospective study evaluating objective hearing assessments with the use of the ten Bright Futures hearing screening questions plus additional adolescent-specific questions to predict adolescent hearing loss.

RESULTS

In relation to the questions used in this study, adolescents who were referred following objective hearing screens were more likely to report "trouble following the conversation when two or more people are talking at the same time" and a "past experience of slight hearing loss". Referrals from sound treated booth testing were more likely to report "trouble hearing over the phone" and have a diagnosis or history of hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Most Bright Futures questions were not associated with adolescent hearing loss. An objective adolescent hearing screen should be considered in the recommended schedule of preventive care, instead of the current risk-based subjective assessment.