Nausheen Dawood1, Faheema Mahomed Asmail1, Christine Louw1, De Wet Swanepoel1,2,3. 1. Department of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 2. Ear Sciences Centre, School of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia. 3. Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of a community-based hearing screening programme using smartphone screening audiometry operated by specialist (School Health Nurses - SHNs) and non-specialist health workers (Community Health Workers - CHWs) in school children. DESIGN: This study used a two-group comparison of screening outcomes as conducted by SHNs and CHWs using smartphone screening for children in communities. STUDY SAMPLE: The study included 71 CHWs and 21 SHNs who conducted community-based hearing screening on 6805 children. One thousand one hundred and fifteen hearing screening tests were conducted by the CHWs and 5690 tests by the SHNs. RESULTS: No significant difference in screening outcome was evident between CHWs and SHNs using a binomial logistic regression analysis considering age, test duration and noise levels as independent variables. Final screening result was significantly affected by age (p < 0.005), duration of test (p < 0.005) and noise levels exceeding at 1 kHz in at least one ear (p < 0.005). Test failure was associated with longer test duration (p < 0.005; B: 119.98; 95% CI: 112.65-127.30). CHWs had significantly (p < 0.005) longer test durations (68.70 s; 70 SD) in comparison to SHNs (55.85 s; 66.1 SD). CONCLUSION: Low-cost mobile technologies with automated testing facilitated from user-friendly interfaces allow minimally trained persons to provide community-based screening comparable to specialised personnel.
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of a community-based hearing screening programme using smartphone screening audiometry operated by specialist (School Health Nurses - SHNs) and non-specialist health workers (Community Health Workers - CHWs) in school children. DESIGN: This study used a two-group comparison of screening outcomes as conducted by SHNs and CHWs using smartphone screening for children in communities. STUDY SAMPLE: The study included 71 CHWs and 21 SHNs who conducted community-based hearing screening on 6805 children. One thousand one hundred and fifteen hearing screening tests were conducted by the CHWs and 5690 tests by the SHNs. RESULTS: No significant difference in screening outcome was evident between CHWs and SHNs using a binomial logistic regression analysis considering age, test duration and noise levels as independent variables. Final screening result was significantly affected by age (p < 0.005), duration of test (p < 0.005) and noise levels exceeding at 1 kHz in at least one ear (p < 0.005). Test failure was associated with longer test duration (p < 0.005; B: 119.98; 95% CI: 112.65-127.30). CHWs had significantly (p < 0.005) longer test durations (68.70 s; 70 SD) in comparison to SHNs (55.85 s; 66.1 SD). CONCLUSION: Low-cost mobile technologies with automated testing facilitated from user-friendly interfaces allow minimally trained persons to provide community-based screening comparable to specialised personnel.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult or general hearing screening; hearing conservation/hearing loss prevention paediatric; non-specialist hearing screening
Authors: Ayomide Owoyemi; Joanne I Osuchukwu; Clark Azubuike; Ronald Kelechi Ikpe; Blessing C Nwachukwu; Cassandra B Akinde; Grace W Biokoro; Abisoye B Ajose; Ezechukwu Ikenna Nwokoma; Nehemiah E Mfon; Temitope O Benson; Anthony Ehimare; Daniel Irowa-Omoregie; Seun Olaniran Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Juliet Nabbuye Sekandi; Kenya Murray; Corinne Berryman; Paula Davis-Olwell; Caroline Hurst; Robert Kakaire; Noah Kiwanuka; Christopher C Whalen; Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka Journal: Interact J Med Res Date: 2022-06-02