Table_2_Combined hearing and vision screening programs: A scoping review.xlsx

Background and aimThe World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 billion and 2.2 billion people have hearing and vision impairment, respectively. The burden of these non-communicable diseases is highest in low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of services and health professionals. The WHO has recommended universal health coverage and integrated service delivery to improve ear and eye care services. This scoping review describes the evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs.MethodA keyword search of three electronic databases, namely Scopus, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science, was conducted, resulting in 219 results. After removing duplicates and screening based on eligibility criteria, data were extracted from 19 included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews were followed. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsMost studies (63.2%) were from high-income countries, with 31.6% from middle-income and 5.2% from low-income countries. The majority of studies (78.9%) involved children and the four studies reporting on adults all included adults above 50 years of age. Vision screening was most commonly performed with the “Tumbling E” and “Snellen Chart,” while hearing was typically screened using pure tone audiometry. Studies reported referral rates as the most common outcome with sensitivity and specificity rates not reported in any included articles. Reported benefits of combined vision and hearing screenings included earlier detection of vision and hearing difficulties to support functioning and quality of life as well as resource sharing for reduced costs. Challenges to combined screening included ineffective follow-up systems, management of test equipment, and monitoring of screening personnel.ConclusionsThere is limited research evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs. Although potential benefits are demonstrated, especially for mHealth-supported programs in communities, more feasibility and implementation research are required, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and across all age groups. Developing universal, standardized reporting guidelines for combined sensory screening programs is recommended to enhance the standardization and effectiveness of combined sensory screening programs.</p

Table_1_Combined hearing and vision screening programs: A scoping review.DOCX

Background and aimThe World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 billion and 2.2 billion people have hearing and vision impairment, respectively. The burden of these non-communicable diseases is highest in low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of services and health professionals. The WHO has recommended universal health coverage and integrated service delivery to improve ear and eye care services. This scoping review describes the evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs.MethodA keyword search of three electronic databases, namely Scopus, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science, was conducted, resulting in 219 results. After removing duplicates and screening based on eligibility criteria, data were extracted from 19 included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews were followed. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsMost studies (63.2%) were from high-income countries, with 31.6% from middle-income and 5.2% from low-income countries. The majority of studies (78.9%) involved children and the four studies reporting on adults all included adults above 50 years of age. Vision screening was most commonly performed with the “Tumbling E” and “Snellen Chart,” while hearing was typically screened using pure tone audiometry. Studies reported referral rates as the most common outcome with sensitivity and specificity rates not reported in any included articles. Reported benefits of combined vision and hearing screenings included earlier detection of vision and hearing difficulties to support functioning and quality of life as well as resource sharing for reduced costs. Challenges to combined screening included ineffective follow-up systems, management of test equipment, and monitoring of screening personnel.ConclusionsThere is limited research evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs. Although potential benefits are demonstrated, especially for mHealth-supported programs in communities, more feasibility and implementation research are required, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and across all age groups. Developing universal, standardized reporting guidelines for combined sensory screening programs is recommended to enhance the standardization and effectiveness of combined sensory screening programs.</p

Analysis of segregation and conservation of novel variants in <i>USH1C</i> and <i>CDH23</i>.

<p>A) <i>USHIC</i> and B) <i>CDH23</i>. Top panel shows the family structure and segregation of the variants; in cases where the variants were seen in more than one family, a single representation is provided; middle panel shows the electropherogram and lower panel shows the conservation of the mutated residue.</p

Schematic representation of TMPRSS3, TMC1, USH1C, CDH23 and TMIE.

<p>A) TMPRSS3, B) TMC1, C) USH1C, D) CDH23 and E) TMIE. Arrows point to the location of the mutations. Shown in red are the mutations identified in the study.</p

Study selection process.

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.</div

Details for studies conducted in hospital-based settings or large-scale donation programs.

Details for studies conducted in hospital-based settings or large-scale donation programs.</p

Details on service provision for studies using telehealth.

Details on service provision for studies using telehealth.</p

Details on service provision for studies conducted in community-based settings.

Details on service provision for studies conducted in community-based settings.</p

Search strategy by database.

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.</div

Details for studies using telehealth.

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.</div