Hashir Aazh1, De Wet Swanepoel2,3, Brian C J Moore4. 1. Department of Audiology, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK. 2. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa. 3. Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia. 4. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Audiology Department at the Royal Surrey County Hospital usually offers face-to-face audiologist-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for tinnitus rehabilitation. During COVID-19 lockdown, patients were offered telehealth CBT via video using a web-based platform. This study evaluated the proportion of patients who took up the offer of telehealth sessions and factors related to this. DESIGN: Retrospective service evaluation. STUDY SAMPLE: 113 consecutive patients whose care was interrupted by the lockdown. RESULTS: 80% of patients accepted telehealth. The main reasons for declining were not having access to a suitable device and the belief that telehealth appointments would not be useful. Compared to having no hearing loss in the better ear, having a mild or moderate hearing loss increased the chance of declining telehealth by factors of 3.5 (p = 0.04) and 14.9 (p = 0.038), respectively. High tinnitus annoyance as measured via the visual analogue scale increased the chance of declining telehealth appointments by a factor of 1.4 (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Although CBT via telehealth was acceptable to most patients, alternatives may be necessary for the 20% who declined. These tended to have worse hearing in their better ear and more annoying tinnitus.
OBJECTIVE: The Audiology Department at the Royal Surrey County Hospital usually offers face-to-face audiologist-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for tinnitus rehabilitation. During COVID-19 lockdown, patients were offered telehealth CBT via video using a web-based platform. This study evaluated the proportion of patients who took up the offer of telehealth sessions and factors related to this. DESIGN: Retrospective service evaluation. STUDY SAMPLE: 113 consecutive patients whose care was interrupted by the lockdown. RESULTS: 80% of patients accepted telehealth. The main reasons for declining were not having access to a suitable device and the belief that telehealth appointments would not be useful. Compared to having no hearing loss in the better ear, having a mild or moderate hearing loss increased the chance of declining telehealth by factors of 3.5 (p = 0.04) and 14.9 (p = 0.038), respectively. High tinnitus annoyance as measured via the visual analogue scale increased the chance of declining telehealth appointments by a factor of 1.4 (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Although CBT via telehealth was acceptable to most patients, alternatives may be necessary for the 20% who declined. These tended to have worse hearing in their better ear and more annoying tinnitus.
Entities:
Keywords:
Tinnitus; audiology; covid-19; telehealth; video