Candidacy for Amplification in Children With Hearing Loss: A Review of Guidelines and Recommendations

Differences in Hearing Devices and Speech Therapy Utilization Between Children With Permanent Unilateral Versus Bilateral Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to describe differences in diagnosis and both auditory and speech/language intervention utilization between children with permanent unilateral hearing loss as compared with bilateral hearing loss.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was performed of children evaluated in a multidisciplinary hearing loss clinic at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Children aged 0 to 18 years with either permanent unilateral or bilateral hearing loss were included.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen children with unilateral hearing loss and 268 children with bilateral hearing loss were studied for a total of 382 children. There were no demographic differences between children with permanent unilateral versus bilateral hearing loss. Rates of newborn hearing screening and referred screening results were similar between those with unilateral and bilateral hearing loss. Despite similar rates of referred newborn hearing screening, those with bilateral hearing loss were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 3.6 years, SD 3.8 years) as compared with those with unilateral hearing loss (mean 5.0 years, SD 4.2 years). Children with unilateral hearing loss had similar severity of hearing loss in their poorer hearing ear as compared with children with bilateral hearing loss, yet they were significantly less likely to be fitted with hearing devices (53% versus 78%) or receive speech/language therapy (36% versus 54%) as compared with children with bilateral hearing loss. Multivariate analysis found that bilateral hearing loss and earlier age of hearing loss diagnosis were associated with hearing device use.

CONCLUSIONS

Early diagnosis and intervention for childhood hearing loss have a significant impact on a child's educational success and social relationships. However, little is known about differences in diagnosis and resource utilization between children with permanent unilateral hearing loss versus bilateral hearing loss. Children with unilateral hearing loss were diagnosed at a later age and were less likely to utilize hearing devices or speech/language therapy compared with those with bilateral hearing loss, despite having similar severity of hearing loss in the poorer hearing ear. There is a strong body of evidence that children with unilateral hearing loss have improved hearing outcomes with hearing devices, which suggests there is room for improvement in identifying unilateral hearing loss and providing adequate services to optimize educational success. However, speech therapy is generally implemented in response to language delays. Therefore, children with unilateral loss may have lower rates of language delays as compared with those with bilateral hearing loss, thereby explaining differences in speech therapy utilization.

Impact of Hearing Aids on Language Outcomes in Preschool Children With Mild Bilateral Hearing Loss

This study aimed to investigate the role of hearing aid (HA) usage in language outcomes among preschool children aged 3-5 years with mild bilateral hearing loss (MBHL). The data were retrieved from a total of 52 children with MBHL and 30 children with normal hearing (NH). The association between demographical, audiological factors and language outcomes was examined. Analyses of variance were conducted to compare the language abilities of HA users, non-HA users, and their NH peers. Furthermore, regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of language outcomes. Aided better ear pure-tone average (BEPTA) was significantly correlated with language comprehension scores. Among children with MBHL, those who used HA outperformed the ones who did not use HA across all linguistic domains. The language skills of children with MBHL were comparable to those of their peers with NH. The degree of improvement in audibility in terms of aided BEPTA was a significant predictor of language comprehension. It is noteworthy that 50% of the parents expressed reluctance regarding HA use for their children with MBHL. The findings highlight the positive impact of HA usage on language development in this population. Professionals may therefore consider HAs as a viable treatment option for children with MBHL, especially when there is a potential risk of language delay due to hearing loss. It was observed that 25% of the children with MBHL had late-onset hearing loss. Consequently, the implementation of preschool screening or a listening performance checklist is recommended to facilitate early detection.

Language and health-related quality of life outcomes of children early-detected with unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss

Introduction

We aimed to describe the language and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of children early-identified with unilateral or mild bilateral permanent hearing loss. This was a cross-sectional community-based study of children with mild bilateral or unilateral permanent hearing loss (including unilateral auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD)), drawn from a population-based databank in Victoria, Australia.

Methods

Enrolment in this databank is independent of early intervention and amplification approaches. Language and caregiver-reported HRQoL outcomes are described by type and degree of loss at three timepoints across child development: at age 2 years (n = 255), 5-7 years (n = 173) and 9-12 years (n = 45).

Results

Across all age groups, average language outcomes were poorer than population normative scores by between a half to two thirds of a standard deviation. Children with mild bilateral hearing loss demonstrated poorer average language outcomes than children with unilateral hearing loss, particularly at younger ages. Children with unilateral ANSD showed language outcomes comparable to their peers with unilateral profound hearing loss. Children had poorer HRQoL psychosocial scores compared to physical scores, without obvious patterns of outcomes linked to degree or type of hearing loss.

Discussion

This study demonstrates children with early-identified unilateral or mild bilateral hearing loss have average language and HRQoL outcomes poorer than population normative expectations from an early age. These outcomes are observed at later ages across childhood. These findings provide a contemporary description of language and quality of life outcomes for children identified but not targeted by universal newborn hearing screening and raise questions of how to provide better support for these populations of children and their families.

Characterisation of the treatment provided for children with unilateral hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Children with permanent unilateral hearing loss (UHL) are an understudied population, with limited data to inform the guidelines on clinical management. There is a funding gap in healthcare provision for the children with UHL in the United Kingdom, where genetic screening, support services, and devices are not consistently provided or fully funded in all areas. They are a disparate population with regard to aetiology and their degree of hearing loss, and hence their device choice and use. Despite having one "good ear", some children with UHL can have similar outcomes, socially, behaviourally, and academically, to children with bilateral hearing loss, highlighting the importance of understanding this population. In this longitudinal cohort study, we aimed to characterise the management of the children with UHL and the gaps in the support services that are provided for the children in Nottingham, United Kingdom.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted collecting longitudinal data over 17 years (2002-2019) for 63 children with permanent congenital confirmed UHL in a large tertiary regional referral centre for hearing loss in Nottingham, United Kingdom. The cases of UHL include permanent congenital, conductive, mixed, or sensorineural hearing loss, and the degree of hearing loss ranges from mild to profound. The data were taken from their diagnostic auditory brainstem responses and their two most recent hearing assessments. Descriptors were recorded of the devices trialled and used and the diagnoses including aetiology of UHL, age of first fit, degree of hearing loss, when and which type of device was used, why a device was not used, the support services provided, concerns raised, and who raised them.

RESULTS

Most children (45/63; 71%) trialled a device, and the remaining 18 children had no device trial on record. Most children (20/45; 44%) trialled a bone-conduction device, followed by contralateral routing of signal aid (15/45; 33%) and conventional hearing aids (9/45; 20%). Most children (36/45; 80%) who had a device indicated that they wore their device "all day" or every day in school. Few children (8/45; 18%) reported that they wore their device rarely, and the reasons for this included bullying (3/8), feedback from the device (2/8), and discomfort from the device (2/8). Only one child reported that the device was not helping with their hearing. The age that the children were first fitted with their hearing device varied a median of 2.5 years for hearing aids and bone-conduction devices and 7 years for a contralateral routing of signal aid. The length of time that the children had the device also varied widely (median of 26 months, range 3-135 months); the children had their bone-conduction hearing aid for the longest period of time (median of 32.5 months). There was a significant trend where more recent device fittings were happening for children at a younger age. Fifty-one children were referred by the paediatric audiologist to a support service, 72.5% (37/51) were subsequently followed up by the referred service with no issue, whilst the remaining 27.5% (14/51) encountered an issue leading to an unsuccessful provision of support. Overall, most children (65%, 41/63) had no reported concerns, and 28.5% (18/63) of the children went on to have a documented concern at some point during their audiological care: five with hearing aid difficulties, five with speech issues, four with no improvement in hearing, three facing self-image or bullying issues, and one case of a child struggling to interact socially with friends. Three of these children had not trialled a device. We documented every concern reported from the parents, clinicians, teachers of the deaf, and from the children themselves. Where concerns were raised, more than half (58.6%, 10/18) were by schools and teachers, the remaining four concerns were raised by the family, and further four concerns were raised by the children themselves.

CONCLUSION

To discover what management will most benefit which children with permanent UHL, we first must characterise their treatment, their concerns, and the support services available for them. Despite the children with UHL being a highly disparate population-in terms of their aetiology, their device use, the degree of hearing loss, and the age at which they trial a device-the majority report they use their device mostly in school. In lieu of available data and in consideration of the devices that are available to them, it could be useful to support families and clinicians in understanding the devices which are most used and where they are used. Considering the reasons for cessation of regular device use counselling and support services would be vital to support the children with UHL.

Speech and Language outcomes in Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder (ANSD) children managed with amplification

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate speech and language outcomes in children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder (ANSD) without significant comorbidities who received hearing rehabilitation in the form of hearing aids and/or cochlear implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of pediatric ANSD patients at a large academic tertiary care institution from 2010 to 2019. Patients were included if they received a diagnosis of bilateral ANSD, had minimal to no comorbidities, and had speech and language testing (SLT) on at least two occasions.

RESULTS

51 patients were reviewed and 7 met inclusion criteria. Average age at ANSD diagnosis was 1 year and 11 months, and average age of hearing aid fitting was 3 years and 3 months. Hearing loss ranged from mild to profound, with four of the children wearing behind (BTE) hearing aids and three eventually receiving cochlear implants. Four of five patients who received hearing aids prior to their first speech and language evaluation demonstrated a delay at their initial evaluation, and all five patients continued to demonstrate a delay at their most recent evaluation, despite appropriate audiologic management and speech and language therapy. There were two patients who were unaided at the time of their initial and latest evaluations; one patient showed a delay at both timepoints, and one patient showed no speech delay at either timepoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric ANSD patients, who are otherwise typically developing and received hearing rehabilitation and speech and language therapy, continue to show a speech and language delay (SLD). This outcome underscores the importance of close monitoring of speech and language development, providing early amplification and/or cochlear implantation, and promoting additional education and psychosocial support.

Trajectory of hearing loss in children with unilateral hearing loss

Introduction

The aim of this study was to quantify the amount of deterioration in hearing and to document the trajectory of hearing loss in early identified children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). We also examined whether clinical characteristics were associated with the likelihood of having progressive hearing loss.

Methods

As part of the Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss Study, we followed a population-based cohort of 177 children diagnosed with UHL from 2003 to 2018. We applied linear mixed models to examine hearing trends over time including the average amount of change in hearing. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between age and severity at diagnosis, etiology, and the likelihood of progressive loss and amount of deterioration in hearing.

Results

The median age of the children at diagnosis was 4.1 months (IQR 2.1, 53.9) and follow-up time was 58.9 months (35.6, 92.0). Average hearing loss in the impaired ear was 58.8 dB HL (SD 28.5). Over the 16-year period, 47.5% (84/177) of children showed deterioration in hearing in one or both ears from their initial diagnostic assessment to most recent assessment including 21 (11.9%) who developed bilateral hearing loss. Average deterioration in the impaired ear ranged from 27 to 31 dB with little variation across frequencies. Deterioration resulted in a change in category of severity for 67.5% (52/77) of the children. Analysis for children who were followed for at least 8 years showed that most lost a significant amount of hearing rapidly in the first 4 years, with the decrease stabilizing and showing a plateau in the last 4 years. Age and severity at diagnosis were not significantly associated with progressive/stable loss after adjusting for time since diagnosis. Etiologic factors (ENT external/middle ear anomalies, inner ear anomalies, syndromic hearing loss, hereditary/genetic) were found to be positively associated with stable hearing loss.

Conclusion

Almost half of children with UHL are at risk for deterioration in hearing in one or both ears. Most deterioration occurs within the first 4 years following diagnosis. Most children did not experience sudden "large" drops in hearing but more gradual decrease over time. These results suggest that careful monitoring of UHL especially in the early years is important to ensure optimal benefit from early hearing loss detection.

Subjective Fatigue in Children With Unaided and Aided Unilateral Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVES

Fatigue is frequently observed in children with chronic diseases and can affect the quality of life (QoL). However, research in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) is scarce. Subsequently, no studies investigated the effects of hearing aids on fatigue in children. This study investigates subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL in children with UHL. Furthermore, it evaluates the influence of hearing aids, subject-specific factors, and respondent-type on subjective fatigue.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2020 until September 2020 at the department of otorhinolaryngology in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the difference in subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL between children with unaided UHL, aided UHL, and normal hearing. Subjective fatigue and hearing-related QoL were measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (PedsQL™-MFS) and Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL™) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Along with 36 aided children with UHL, 34 unaided and 36 normal-hearing children were included. Child reports revealed significantly more cognitive fatigue in children with aided UHL than children with normal hearing (median difference 12.5, P = .013). Parents reported more fatigue in children with UHL compared to normal-hearing siblings. Especially children with aided UHL seemed at increased risk for fatigue. Children with UHL scored lower on hearing-related QoL than children with normal hearing. No apparent differences were found in fatigue and QoL between children with unaided and aided UHL.

CONCLUSION

Children with unaided and even aided UHL seem to experience more subjective fatigue and lower hearing-related QoL than children with normal hearing. Prospective longitudinal studies are required to investigate the influence of hearing aids on fatigue and QoL in individual patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2021 Laryngoscope, 133:189-198, 2023.