| Literature DB >> 35938885 |
James E Saunders1,2,3, Sarah Bessen2, Isabelle Magro2, Devin Cowan2, Marvin Gonzalez Quiroz4,5, Karen Mojica-Alvarez6, Donoso Penalba7, Catherine Reike3,8, Christopher E Niemczak3,8,9, Abigail Fellows3,8, Jay C Buckey3,8,9.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using minimally trained community health workers (CHW) to screen schoolchildren in rural Nicaragua for hearing loss using a tablet-based audiometric system integrated with asynchronous telehealth evaluations and mobile health (mHealth) appointment reminders.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35938885 PMCID: PMC9359107 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.04060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Glob Health ISSN: 2047-2978 Impact factor: 7.664
Figure 1Transportation of portable audiometric equipment to remote testing sites: A) Complete tablet-based audiometric system with WAHTS mounted on motorcycle for transport. B) Student completing tablet-based automated audiometry with WAHTS headset. C) Community Health Workers en route to remote mountainous study site.
Participant characteristics
| Total sample (n = 3398) | Referred for detailed telehealth evaluation (n = 89) | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 7 | 1183 (34.8%) | 42 (47.2%) |
| 8 | 1145 (33.7%) | 20 (22.4%) |
| 9 | 1070 (31.5%) | 27 (30.3%) |
|
| ||
| Female | 1741 (51.2%) | 43 (48.3%) |
| Male | 1657 (48.8%) | 46 (51.7%) |
|
| ||
| 1 | 670 (19.7%) | 22 (24.7%) |
| 2 | 1198 (35.3%) | 34 (38.2%) |
| 3 | 990 (29.1%) | 18 (20.2%) |
| 4 | 490 (14.4%) | 13 (14.6%) |
| 5 | 48 (1.4%) | 2 (2.2%) |
| 6 | 2 (0.1%) | 0 (0%) |
Figure 2Flowchart of audiometric screening protocol with number of participants at each stage. *Aborted automated audiometric due to difficulty with testing or behavioral problems, **No detectable hearing loss at screened frequencies in school (1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) – children with hearing loss outside of this range were not included in this result.
Figure 3Geographic distribution of testing sites in the Department of Jinotega in northern Nicaragua.
Socioeconomic and telehealth survey for 92 communities
| Survey question | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Feel that child hearing loss is a problem in the community | 26 (29.2%) |
| Personally know children with hearing loss | 19 (21.3%) |
| % of population completed secondary education | 20 (22.5%) |
| Average income<US$100 in past year | 73 (82.0%) |
| 100% of children receive all recommended vaccines | 54 (60.7%) |
| Children receive hearing screening in schools | 2 (2.2%) |
| Most families work with pesticides | 84 (100.0%) |
| Most families have pesticides in the house | 80 (98.8%) |
| Presence of a computer in this school/clinic (n, %) | 13 (14.6%) |
| Presence of smart phones or tablets in this school/clinic (n, %) | 10 (11.2%) |
| Presence of wireless Internet connection in the clinic/school (n, %) | 2 (2.3%) |
| Access to Internet nearby (n, %) | 3 (3.4%) |
Telehealth evaluation findings (n = 89 children)
| Right ear, n = 88 | Left ear, n = 89 | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Excellent Quality, n (%) | 39 (44.3) | 40 (44.9) |
| Moderate Quality, n (%) | 45 (51.1) | 45 (50.6) |
| Poor Quality, n (%) | 4 (4.5) | 4 (4.5) |
|
| n = 86 | n = 87 |
| Invalid Tympanometry (n = 126 ears)*, n (%) | 14 (22.6) | 11 (17.2) |
*Tympanometry validity was only assessed for those children with clinic-based tympanometry results.