Swords, Chloe, Ghedia, Reshma, Blanchford, Hannah, Arwyn–Jones, James, Heward, Elliot, Milinis, Kristijonas, Hardman, John, Smith, Matthew E., Bance, Manohar, and Muzaffar, Jameel
Background: Patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral. Methods and findings: A multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants). Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity. Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p < 0·001), were male (females 1·52; [1·27, 1·81]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·97; [0·96, 0·97]; p < 0·001). They were less likely to be informed of their potential eligibility if they lived in more deprived areas (4th (1·99; [1·49, 2·66]; p < 0·001), 5th (1·75; [1·31, 2·33], p < 0·001), 6th (1·85; [1·39, 2·45]; p < 0·001), 7th (1·66; [1·25, 2·21]; p < 0·001), and 8th (1·74; [1·31, 2·31]; p < 0·001) deciles), the North of England or London (North 0·74; [0·62, 0·89]; p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p < 0·001), were of Asian or black ethnic backgrounds compared to white patients (Asian 0·58; [0·43, 0·79]; p < 0·001; black 0·56; [0·34, 0·92]; p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p < 0·001), or were older (0·98; [0·98, 0·98]; p < 0·001). The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups. Conclusions: The majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process. In this multi-centre UK wide study including >6000 participants, Chloe Swords and co-workers explore referral patterns for cochlear implantation vary across the UK according to ethnicity and socioeconomics. Author summary: Why was this study done?: • This study was undertaken to investigate referral patterns for cochlear implantation among patients meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria in Great Britain and to identify if socioeconomic or ethnic disparities effect the likelihood of referral. What did the researchers do and find?: • Researchers conducted an observational study across 36 secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain, focusing on adults who met pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implant assessment. • Of 6,171 included adults identified, 36% were informed of their potential eligibility for a cochlear implant, but only 9% were actually referred for assessment. • Referral likelihood was lower for those in more deprived areas, living in London, of male sex, or older age. • Ethnic minorities, particularly of Asian or black backgrounds, were also less likely to be informed about their eligibility. What do these findings mean?: • These data suggest that the majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are not being referred appropriately for cochlear implant assessments, indicating significant disparities in patient management based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and sex. • These disparities suggest a need for targeted efforts to improve referral rates among underrepresented groups and to ensure all patients are informed of their treatment options. • Further research is required to understand and address these disparities, with initiatives to ensure informed decision-making, educate healthcare providers, and explore reasons for declining cochlear implant assessments, especially among older ethnic minority groups. • Study limitations include its observational retrospective nature, potential inaccuracies in the reporting of sex and gender, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referral protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]