Unilateral Hearing Loss in Youth: Development of Candidate Items for a Condition-Specific Validated Instrument

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.

Use of Socioeconomic Demographic Data in Studies on Pediatric Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Social determinants of health (SDOH) (healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, socioeconomic status, social and cultural context, neighborhood and built environment) ( Healthy People 2030 ) have been shown to impact a wide range of health-related outcomes and access to care. Given the medical and nonmedical costs associated with children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), the varied insurance coverage for hearing healthcare services, and the differences in hearing aid utilization rates between children of different sociodemographic classes, the sociodemographic information of children with UHL enrolled in research studies should be collected to ensure the generalizability of hearing healthcare interventions. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to assess the reporting of SDOH data for participants in studies of pediatric UHL and its comparison to population trends.

DESIGN

Two searches of published literature were conducted by a qualified medical librarian. Two reviewers then evaluated all candidate articles. Study inclusion parameters were from 2010 to present, peer-reviewed studies with prospective study design, and participant population including children (age 0 to 18 years old) with UHL.

RESULTS

Two literature searches using PubMed Medline and Embase found 442 and 3058 studies each for review. After abstract and paper review, 87 studies were included in final qualitative review, with 22 of these studies reporting race distribution of participants, 15 reporting insurance status or family income, and 12 reporting the maternal education level.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic data are not commonly reported in research studies of children with UHL. In reported samples, research participants are more likely to have private insurance and higher family income compared with overall population distribution. These demographic biases may affect the generalizability of study results to all children with UHL. Further evaluation is warranted to evaluate whether participant recruitment affects outcomes that reflect the overall population.

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.