Search

Background: Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office., Methods: Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan., Results: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit., Conclusions: Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The burden of hearing loss among older adults could be mitigated with appropriate care. This study compares implementation of three hearing screening strategies in primary care, and examines the reliability and validity of patient self-assessment, primary care providers (PCP) and diagnostic audiologists in the identification of 'red flag' conditions (those conditions that may require medical consultation and/or intervention)., Methods: Six primary care practices will implement one of three screening strategies (2 practices per strategy) with 660 patients (220 per strategy) ages 65-75 years with no history of hearing aid use or diagnosis of hearing loss. Strategies differ on the location and use of PCP encouragement to complete a telephone-based hearing screen (tele-HS). Group 1: instructions for tele-HS to complete at home and educational materials on warning signs and consequences of hearing loss. Group 2: PCP counseling/encouragement on importance of hearing screening, instructions to take the tele-HS from home, educational materials. Group 3: PCP counseling/encouragement, in-office tele-HS, and educational materials. Patients from all groups who fail the tele-HS will be referred for diagnostic audiological testing and medical evaluation, and complete a self-assessment of red flag conditions at this follow-up appointment. Due to the expected low incidence of ear disease in the PCP cohort, we will enroll a complementary population of patients (N = 500) from selected otolaryngology head and neck surgery clinics in a national practice-based research network to increase the likelihood of occurrence of medical conditions that might contraindicate hearing aid fitting. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who complete the tele-HS within 2 months of the PCP appointment comparing Group 3 (PCP encouragement, in-office tele-HS, education) versus Groups 2 and 1 (education and tele-HS at home, with and without PCP encouragement, respectively). The several secondary outcomes include direct and indirect costs, patient, family and provider attitudes of hearing healthcare, and accuracy of red flag condition evaluations compared with expert medical assessment by an otolaryngology provider., Discussion: Determining the relative effectiveness of three different strategies for hearing screening in primary care and the assessment accuracy of red flag conditions can each lead to practice and policy changes that will reduce individual, family and societal burden from hearing loss among older adults., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928107; 10/10/2016 protocol version 1.

Background: Infections affecting the middle ear are a common childhood occurrence. Some cases may present with ear discharge through a tympanic membrane perforation which may heal spontaneously. However, up to 5% or more cases of those affected have persistent ear discharge. A number of barriers contribute towards delayed presentation at health facilities for treatment of ear infections. We conducted a study to evaluate parents' and caregivers' knowledge and care seeking practices for ear infections in children under five in Gasabo district in Kigali, Rwanda., Methods: Parents/guardians ( n  = 810) were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to elicit their knowledge of ear infections in children under five and their attitude to seeking care for their children., Results: The mean age of the respondents was 31.27 years (SD = 7.88, range 17-83). Considering an average of knowledge parameters which included causes, symptoms, prevention, treatment and consequences of ear infections, we found that 76.6% (622) of respondents were knowledgeable about ear infections. We defined a positive practice as seeking medical treatment (community health workers or health facility) and this was found in 89.1% (722) respondents. Correlating knowledge with choice of seeking treatment, respondents were 33% less likely to practice medical pluralism (OR = 0.33, CI 0.11-0.97, P  = 0.043) if they were familiar with infections. Moreover, urban dweller were 1.7 times more likely to know ear infections compared to rural dwellers (OR = 1.70, CI 1.22-2.38, P  = 0.002)., Conclusion: The majority of respondents had good knowledge and positive attitudes and practices about ear infection. However, medical pluralism was common. There is need to improve the community's awareness and access to primary health care facilities for the care of ear infections especially in rural areas of Rwanda.