Claire Benton

Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits

Abstract Objectives: To document the prevalence of clinically normal air conduction thresholds (0.5–4 kHz, bilaterally, ≤20 dB HL) among children and adults in a large audiology service and to estimate the prevalence of auditory processing disorder (APD). Design: Over a period of one year, clinicians implemented their usual protocol and recorded a brief history for those with normal audiometry. Study Sample: The number of people seen by the service was 2924 children (0–16 years old) and 4757 adults (17–100 years old). Results: Adults and school-age children were most commonly referred by their primary care doctor for difficulties listening in noise or following a conversation, and younger children by their home health visitor for speech production problems. Children tended to be referred on to speech pathology or APD clinics whereas adults were discharged. Conclusions: The prevalence of normal cases was 5.1% among the children and 0.9% among all adults. For younger adults (17–60 years, n = 1025), the prevalence was 4.0%. Based on comparison with those referred with hearing loss, we estimate the prevalence of APD among children and adults, defined as listening problems despite normal audiometry, to be about 0.5–1.0% of the general population. Sumario Objetivos: Documentar la prevalencia de umbrales aéreos clínicamente normales (0.5 – 4 kHz bilateralmente ≤20 dB HL) en niños y adultos en un servicio de audiología grande y estimar la prevalencia de trastornos de procesamiento central de la audición (APD). Diseño: Por un periodo de 1 año, los clínicos implementaron su protocolo acostumbrado y obtuvieron una historia breve de aquellos con audiometría normal. Muestra: la cantidad de personas vistas en el servicio fueron 2924 niños (0 a 16 años de edad) y 4757 adultos (17 a 100 años de edad). Resultados: Por lo regular, los adultos y los niños en edad escolar fueron referidos por su médico de contacto primario por dificultades para escuchar en ruido o para seguir una conversación, y los niños pequeños fueron referidos por su visitador de salud por problemas en la producción del lenguaje. La tendencia fue que los niños fueran referidos al terapeuta del lenguaje o clínicas APD, en tanto que los adultos eran dados de alta. Conclusiones: La prevalencia de audición normal fue de 5.1% entre los niños y 0.9% entre los adultos. La prevalencia entre los adulos jóvenes (17-60 años, n=1025) fue de 4%. Basados en la comparación con aquellos referidos con hipoacusia, estimamos que la prevalencia de APD entre los niños y adultos, definida como problemas de escucha a pesar de una audiometría normal normal, es de 0.5 – 1 % en la población general.

A programme of studies including assessment of diagnostic accuracy of school hearing screening tests and a cost-effectiveness model of school entry hearing screening programmes

BACKGROUND Identification of permanent hearing impairment at the earliest possible age is crucial to maximise the development of speech and language. Universal newborn hearing screening identifies the majority of the 1 in 1000 children born with a hearing impairment, but later onset can occur at any time and there is no optimum time for further screening. A universal but non-standardised school entry screening (SES) programme is in place in many parts of the UK but its value is questioned. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hearing screening tests and the cost-effectiveness of the SES programme in the UK. DESIGN Systematic review, case-control diagnostic accuracy study, comparison of routinely collected data for services with and without a SES programme, parental questionnaires, observation of practical implementation and cost-effectiveness modelling. SETTING Second- and third-tier audiology services; community. PARTICIPANTS Children aged 4-6 years and their parents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Diagnostic accuracy of two hearing screening devices, referral rate and source, yield, age at referral and cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS The review of diagnostic accuracy studies concluded that research to date demonstrates marked variability in the design, methodological quality and results. The pure-tone screen (PTS) (Amplivox, Eynsham, UK) and HearCheck (HC) screener (Siemens, Frimley, UK) devices had high sensitivity (PTS ≥ 89%, HC ≥ 83%) and specificity (PTS ≥ 78%, HC ≥ 83%) for identifying hearing impairment. The rate of referral for hearing problems was 36% lower with SES (Nottingham) relative to no SES (Cambridge) [rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.69; p < 0.001]. The yield of confirmed cases did not differ between areas with and without SES (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; p = 0.12). The mean age of referral did not differ between areas with and without SES for all referrals but children with confirmed hearing impairment were older at referral in the site with SES (mean age difference 0.47 years, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70 years; p < 0.001). Parental responses revealed that the consequences to the family of the referral process are minor. A SES programme is unlikely to be cost-effective and, using base-case assumptions, is dominated by a no screening strategy. A SES programme could be cost-effective if there are fewer referrals associated with SES programmes or if referrals occur more quickly with SES programmes. CONCLUSIONS A SES programme using the PTS or HC screener is unlikely to be effective in increasing the identified number of cases with hearing impairment and lowering the average age at identification and is therefore unlikely to represent good value for money. This finding is, however, critically dependent on the results of the observational study comparing Nottingham and Cambridge, which has limitations. The following are suggested: systematic reviews of the accuracy of devices used to measure hearing at school entry; characterisation and measurement of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to the ad-hoc referral system; examination of programme specificity as opposed to test specificity; further observational comparative studies of different programmes; and opportunistic trials of withdrawal of SES programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61668996. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hearing aids for otitis media with effusion: Do children use them?

INTRODUCTION ENT surgeons may refer children with otitis media with effusion (OME) to audiology for consideration of hearing aids. They are an option for the treatment of OME, but are only effective if the child actually wears them. Our study investigated what proportion of children referred for hearing aids actually receive them, and whether children use them. METHOD Retrospective study of children referred to audiology from November 2013 to August 2014, including 70 children referred by ENT for hearing aids for OME, plus a further 5 children with OME given hearing aids through direct access audiology service. RESULTS During the study period, there were 202 referrals of children to audiology, of which 70 (34.7%) were for consideration of hearing aids for OME. Of these 70 referred children, 37 (52.9%) were not fitted with hearing aids due to normal audiometry (23), asymptomatic mild hearing loss (7), nonattendance (3), clinical decision to just monitor hearing (1), parental decline (2), and unrecorded reason (1). A total of 38 children (including direct access patients) were fitted with hearing aids for OME. Majority (36/38) of children issued aids used them, 16 all day, 7 only at school, 1 only at home, 3 only when needed, and 9 used them for an unspecified duration; 1 childs use of hearing aids was unrecorded, and 1 child refused to use it. 21 were fitted bilaterally and 17 unilaterally. 37 were behind the ear aids and 1 a BAHA softband. CONCLUSIONS A third of referrals to paediatric audiology by ENT are for consideration of hearing aids for OME. Only about half of children referred to audiology for hearing aids for OME actually receive them, as by the time they see audiology the hearing loss has frequently resolved or is asymptomatic so that aiding is unwarranted. Once fitted, they appear to be well accepted. Hearing aids have fair utilization in children fitted with them for OME.

Assessment of the feasibility and clinical value of further research to evaluate the management options for children with Down syndrome and otitis media with effusion: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND There is clinical uncertainty of the benefits and costs of different treatment options for children with Down syndrome who have glue ear. This study was designed to assess the extent of this lack of knowledge and determine if pursuing further information would be practical, beneficial and cost-effective. OBJECTIVES To assess the level and practical effect of current uncertainty around treatment options for children with Down syndrome and glue ear. To assess the feasibility of studying the options for management of glue ear in children with Down syndrome via a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or multicentre prospective cohort study by evaluating the willingness of (1) parents to agree to randomisation for their children and (2) clinicians to recruit participants to a definitive study. To undertake value of information analyses to demonstrate the potential economic benefit from undertaking further research. DESIGN A feasibility study exploring the views of parents of children with Down syndrome and professionals who have responsibility for the health and education of children with Down syndrome, on the participation in, and value of, future research into interventions for glue ear. Data were collected from parents via self-completed questionnaires, face-to-face interviews and focus groups and from professionals via online questionnaires and a Delphi review exercise. Development of economic models to represent clinical pathways of care and a RCT informed a value of information (VOI) analysis. SETTING UK (professionals); East Midlands region of the UK (parents). PARTICIPANTS Parents of children aged 1-11 years with Down syndrome (n = 156). Professionals including audiologists, ear, nose and throat surgeons, audiological physicians, speech and language therapists, and teachers of the deaf (n = 128). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Quantitative and qualitative data on parental views and experiences of glue ear and its effects; interventions and treatment received; taking part in research and factors that would encourage or discourage participation; and the importance of various outcome domains to them and for their children. For professionals: information on caseloads; approaches to clinical management; opinions on frequency and significance of the consequences of glue ear for this population; importance of different outcome measures; opinions of interventions and their role in future research; views on health research; facilitators and barriers to recruitment, and participation in research involving RCTs. RESULTS The complexity of the experience and individual characteristics of children with Down syndrome poses challenges for the design of any future research but these challenges were not considered by professionals to raise sufficient barriers to prevent it being undertaken. Parents were generally supportive of the need for, and value of, research but identified practical and emotional issues that would need addressing. Glue ear was considered to impact more on speech, language and communication than on hearing. Outcome measures for future research would need to evaluate these elements but measures should be designed specifically for the population. Parents and professionals identified randomisation as a significant barrier to participation. The VOI analyses identified lack of data as problematic but concluded that a future trial involving surgical intervention would be feasible at costs of < £650,000. CONCLUSIONS Future research into the benefits of interventions for glue ear in children with Down syndrome would be feasible and could be cost-effective but should be carefully designed to facilitate and maximise participation from parents and professionals responsible for recruitment. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A directly comparative two-gate case–control diagnostic accuracy study of the pure tone screen and HearCheck screener tests for identifying hearing impairment in school children

Objectives This study directly compared the accuracy of two audiometry-based tests for screening school children for hearing impairment: the currently used test, pure tone screen and a device newly applied to children, HearCheck Screener. Design Two-gate case–control diagnostic test accuracy study. Setting and participants Hearing impaired children (‘intended cases’) aged 4–6 years were recruited between February 2013 and August 2014 from collaborating audiology services. Children with no previously identified impairment (‘intended controls’) were recruited from Foundation and Year 1 of schools between February 2013 and June 2014 in central England. The reference standard was pure tone audiometry. Tests were administered at Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit or, for some intended cases only, in the participant’s home. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity of the pure tone screen and HearCheck tests based on pure tone audiometry result as reference standard. Results 315 children (630 ears) were recruited; 75 from audiology services and 240 from schools. Full test and reference standard data were obtained for 600 ears; 155 ears were classified as truly impaired and 445 as truly hearing based on the pure tone audiometry assessment. Sensitivity was estimated to be 94.2% (95% CI 89.0% to 97.0%) for pure tone screen and 89.0% (95% CI 82.9% to 93.1%) for HearCheck (difference=5.2% favouring pure tone screen; 95% CI 0.2% to 10.1%; p=0.02). Estimates for specificity were 82.2% (95% CI 77.7% to 86.0%) for pure tone screen and 86.5% (95% CI 82.5% to 89.8%) for HearCheck (difference=4.3% favouring HearCheck; 95% CI0.4% to 8.2%; p=0.02). Conclusion Pure tone screen was better than HearCheck with respect to sensitivity but inferior with respect to specificity. As avoiding missed cases is arguably of greater importance for school entry screening, pure tone screen is probably preferable in this context. Study registration number Current controlled trials: ISRCTN61668996.