Validated Smartphone-Based Apps for Ear and Hearing Assessments: A Review.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 360 million people have a disabling hearing impairment globally, the vast majority of whom live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Early identification through screening is important to negate the negative effects of untreated hearing impairment. Substantial barriers exist in screening for hearing impairment in LMICs, such as the requirement for skilled hearing health care professionals and prohibitively expensive specialist equipment to measure hearing. These challenges may be overcome through utilization of increasingly available smartphone app technologies for ear and hearing assessments that are easy to use by unskilled professionals. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify and compare available apps for ear and hearing assessments and consider the incorporation of such apps into hearing screening programs. METHODS: In July 2015, the commercial app stores Google Play and Apple App Store were searched to identify apps for ear and hearing assessments. Thereafter, six databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health, Web of Science, CINAHL, and mHealth Evidence) were searched to assess which of the apps identified in the commercial review had been validated against gold standard measures. A comparison was made between validated apps. RESULTS: App store search queries returned 30 apps that could be used for ear and hearing assessments, the majority of which are for performing audiometry. The literature search identified 11 eligible validity studies that examined 6 different apps. uHear, an app for self-administered audiometry, was validated in the highest number of peer reviewed studies against gold standard pure tone audiometry (n=5). However, the accuracy of uHear varied across these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Very few of the available apps have been validated in peer-reviewed studies. Of the apps that have been validated, further independent research is required to fully understand their accuracy at detecting ear and hearing conditions

A Systematic Review of Access to Rehabilitation for People with Disabilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Rehabilitation seeks to optimize functioning of people with impairments and includes a range of specific health services-diagnosis, treatment, surgery, assistive devices, and therapy. Evidence on access to rehabilitation services for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. A systematic review was conducted to examine this in depth. In February 2017, six databases were searched for studies measuring access to rehabilitation among people with disabilities in LMICs. Eligible measures of access to rehabilitation included: use of assistive devices, use of specialist health services, and adherence to treatment. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Of 13,048 screened studies, 77 were eligible for inclusion. These covered a broad geographic area. 17% of studies measured access to hearing-specific services; 22% vision-specific; 31% physical impairment-specific; and 44% measured access to mental impairment-specific services. A further 35% measured access to services for any disability. A diverse range of measures of disability and access were used across studies making comparability difficult. However, there was some evidence that access to rehabilitation is low among people with disabilities. No clear patterns were seen in access by equity measures such as age, locality, socioeconomic status, or country income group due to the limited number of studies measuring these indicators, and the range of measures used. Access to rehabilitation services was highly variable and poorly measured within the studies in the review, but generally shown to be low. Far better metrics are needed, including through clinical assessment, before we have a true appreciation of the population level need for and coverage of these services

A systematic review of strategies to increase access to health services among children in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results. RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200

A Systematic Review of Access to General Healthcare Services for People with Disabilities in Low and Middle Income Countries.

Background: A systematic review was undertaken to explore access to general healthcare services for people with disabilities in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: Six electronic databases were searched in February 2017. Studies comparing access to general healthcare services by people with disabilities to those without disabilities from LMICs were included. Eligible measures of healthcare access included: utilisation, coverage, adherence, expenditure, and quality. Studies measuring disability using self-reported or clinical assessments were eligible. Title, abstract and full-text screening and data extraction was undertaken by the two authors. Results: Searches returned 13,048 studies, of which 50 studies were eligible. Studies were predominantly conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (30%), Latin America (24%), and East Asia/Pacific (12%). 74% of studies used cross-sectional designs and the remaining used case-control designs. There was evidence that utilisation of healthcare services was higher for people with disabilities, and healthcare expenditure was higher. There were less consistent differences between people with and without disabilities in other access measures. However, the wide variation in type and measurement of disability, and access outcomes, made comparisons across studies difficult. Conclusions: Developing common metrics for measuring disability and healthcare access will improve the availability of high quality, comparable data, so that healthcare access for people with disabilities can be monitored and improved

Etiology of Childhood Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Shandong Province, China.

Objectives The purpose of this study is to ascertain the etiology of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in children aged ≤ 18 years living in Shandong province. Method Data were taken from a cross-sectional study, which was conducted between 2015 and 2017. The study included children aged ≤ 18 years, recruited from special schools for children with hearing loss and from hearing rehabilitation centers in Shandong province of China. Children were screened for bilateral SNHL through audiological testing. Clinical examination, genetic testing, and structured interviews were conducted for those children who were identified as having hearing loss to identify the potential cause. Results The etiology of bilateral SNHL in our sample was genetic in 874 (39.3%), acquired in 650 (29.3%), and unknown in 697 (31.4%) children. Among children with acquired SNHL, the cause was maternal viral infection in 75 (11.5%); perinatal factors in 238 (36.6%); meningitis, measles, and mumps in 146 (22.5%); and ototoxic exposure in 117 (18%) children. Among the children with genetic SNHL, only 44 (4.9%) were identified as having syndromic hearing loss, and the remainder (95.1%) were classified as nonsyndromic hearing loss. Conclusion The findings indicated that nearly 30% of bilateral SNHL in Shandong province could be preventable through immunization, early prenatal diagnosis, proper treatment of infections, and avoidance of prescription of ototoxic drugs. This finding emphasizes the need for programs aimed at improving the health services at primary and secondary levels of health care, which will in turn prevent childhood hearing loss

Reasons for low uptake of referrals to ear and hearing services for children in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and appropriate intervention for children with hearing impairment is important for maximizing functioning and quality of life. The lack of ear and hearing services in low income countries is a significant challenge, however, evidence suggests that even where such services are available, and children are referred to them, uptake is low. The aim of this study was to assess uptake of and barriers to referrals to ear and hearing services for children in Thyolo District, Malawi. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study. A survey was conducted with 170 caregivers of children who were referred for ear and hearing services during community-based screening camps to assess whether they had attended their referral and reasons for non-attendance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 caregivers of children who did not take up their referral to explore in-depth the reasons for non-uptake. In addition, 15 stakeholders were interviewed. Thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted and emerging trends were analysed. RESULTS: Referral uptake was very low with only 5 out of 150 (3%) children attending. Seven main interacting themes for non-uptake of referral were identified in the semi-structured interviews: location of the hospital, lack of transport, other indirect costs of seeking care, fear and uncertainty about the referral hospital, procedural problems within the camps, awareness and understanding of hearing loss, and lack of visibility and availability of services. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted a range of interacting challenges faced by families in accessing ear and hearing services in this setting. Understanding these context specific barriers to non-uptake of ear and hearing services is important for designing appropriate interventions to increase uptake

Disability-inclusive COVID-19 response: What it is, why it is important and what we can learn from the United Kingdom's response.

All too often, disabled people are left behind in emergencies, and this is a risk in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This is an important issue, as globally there are approximately one billion people with disabilities. This number includes one in three people aged over 60, who are the group at greatest risk from COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic in the UK has highlighted additional difficulties that disabled people may face. Complying with preventative measures, like social distancing, can be challenging, particular for people who rely on carers. Disabled people may also be at greater risk of morbidity and mortality if they contract the virus, yet in danger of being de-prioritised for care. Many people with disabilities have ongoing healthcare needs, and these need to still be supported during the pandemic. Furthermore, people may become newly disabled as a result of the pandemic, and therefore require appropriate care. Good practice examples have emerged for meeting these challenges, such as guidance for healthcare professionals on treating people with dementia, but these need to be scaled up further and adapted for other settings. In conclusion, it is clear that a disability-inclusive COVID-19 response is needed, both in the UK and as the pandemic unfolds globally. This response will require inclusion of disability measures within data collection, consulting with disabled people, and tailoring responses to be appropriate for this group

Population need for primary eye care in Rwanda: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Universal access to Primary Eye Care (PEC) is a key global initiative to reduce and prevent avoidable causes of visual impairment (VI). PEC can address minor eye conditions, simple forms of uncorrected refractive error (URE) and create a referral pathway for specialist eye care, thus offering a potential solution to a lack of eye health specialists in low-income countries. However, there is little information on the population need for PEC, including prevalence of URE in all ages in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: A national survey was conducted of people aged 7 and over in Rwanda in September-December 2016. Participants were selected through two-stage probability proportional to size sampling and compact segment sampling. VI (visual acuity<6/12) was assessed using Portable Eye Examination Kit (PEEK); URE was detected using a pinhole and presbyopia using local near vision test. We also used validated questionnaires to collect socio-demographic and minor eye symptoms information. Prevalence estimates for VI, URE and need for PEC (URE, presbyopia with good distance vision, need for referrals and minor eye conditions) were age and sex standardized to the Rwandan population. Associations between age, sex, socio-economic status and the key outcomes were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: 4618 participants were examined and interviewed out of 5361 enumerated (86% response rate). The adjusted population prevalence of VI was 3.7% (95%CI = 3.0-4.5%), URE was 2.2% (95%CI = 1.7-2.8%) and overall need for PEC was 34.0% (95%CI = 31.8-36.4%). Women and older people were more likely to need PEC and require a referral. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a third of the population in Rwanda has the potential to benefit from PEC, with greater need identified in older people and women. Universal access to PEC can address unmet eye health needs and public health planning needs to ensure equitable access to older people and women

Systematic review of strategies to increase access to health services among children over five in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The populations of many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are young. Despite progress made towards achieving Universal Health Coverage and remarkable health gains, evidence suggests that many children in LMIC are still not accessing needed healthcare services. Delayed or lack of access to health services can lead to a worsening of health and can in turn negatively impact a child's ability to attend school, and future employment opportunities. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children over 5 years in LMIC settings. Four electronic databases were searched in March 2017. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: healthcare utilisation, immunisation uptake and compliance with medication/referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised study designs were included in the review. Data extraction included study characteristics, intervention type and measures of access to health services for children above 5 years of age. Study outcomes were classified as positive, negative, mixed or null in terms of their impact on access outcomes. RESULTS: Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Interventions were evaluated in Nicaragua (1), Brazil (1), Turkey (1), India (1), China (1), Uganda (1), Ghana (1), Nigeria (1), South Africa (1) and Swaziland (1). Intervention types included education (2), incentives (1), outreach (1), SMS/phone call reminders (2) and multicomponent interventions (4). All evaluations reported positive findings on measured health access outcomes; however, the quality and strength of evidence were mixed. CONCLUSION: This review provides evidence of the range of interventions that were used to increase healthcare access for children above 5 years old in LMIC. Nevertheless, further research is needed to examine each of the identified intervention types and the influence of contextual factors, with robust study designs. There is also a need to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions to inform decision-makers on which are suitable for scale-up in their particular contexts

The relationship between mental health conditions and hearing loss in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing loss can have far-reaching effects on social, emotional and cognitive development, but few studies have addressed the link with mental health conditions. We conducted a systematic review of the association between hearing loss and mental health conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We searched six electronic databases using predetermined criteria to retrieve original research reporting mental health in people with hearing loss. We considered quantitative studies measuring any type of mental health conditions according to the ICD10 classifications of 'Mental and behavioural disorders' in relation to any measure of hearing loss. We assessed risk of bias using a set of criteria according to the SIGN50 guidelines. RESULTS: We included 12 studies evaluating 35 604 people with hearing loss in 10 countries. Poorer mental health (measured as stress and anxiety, depression, and/or behavioural and emotional disorders) was more common among people with hearing loss compared to those without in 10 studies. One study found no difference in mental health outcomes between people with hearing, visual and no impairment. Another study reported that after hearing aids, those with severe hearing loss had significant improvement in psychosocial function, compared to no change among those without hearing loss. Overall, one study was judged to be high quality, seven medium quality and four low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Included studies showed a trend towards poorer mental health outcomes for people with hearing loss than for those without. However, our findings indicate that very few high-quality studies have been conducted in LMICs