Treatment options for subjective tinnitus: Self reports from a sample of general practitioners and ENT physicians within Europe and the USA

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tinnitus affects about 10-15% of the general population and risks for developing tinnitus are rising through increased exposure to leisure noise through listening to personal music players at high volume. The disorder has a considerable heterogeneity and so no single mechanism is likely to explain the presence of tinnitus in all those affected. As such there is no standardized management pathway nor singly effective treatment for the condition. Choice of clinical intervention is a multi-factorial decision based on many factors, including assessment of patient needs and the healthcare context. The present research surveyed clinicians working in six Westernized countries with the aims: a) to establish the range of referral pathways, b) to evaluate the typical treatment options for categories of subjective tinnitus defined as acute or chronic, and c) to seek clinical opinion about levels of satisfaction with current standards of practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A structured online questionnaire was conducted with 712 physicians who reported seeing at least one tinnitus patients in the previous three months. They were 370 general practitioners (GPs) and 365 ear-nose-throat specialists (ENTs) from the US, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our international comparison of health systems for tinnitus revealed that although the characteristics of tinnitus appeared broadly similar across countries, the patient's experience of clinical services differed widely. GPs and ENTs were always involved in referral and management to some degree, but multi-disciplinary teams engaged either neurology (Germany, Italy and Spain) or audiology (UK and US) professionals. For acute subjective tinnitus, pharmacological prescriptions were common, while audiological and psychological approaches were more typical for chronic subjective tinnitus; with several specific treatment options being highly country specific. All therapy options were associated with low levels of satisfaction.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite a large variety of treatment options, the low success rates of tinnitus therapy lead to frustration of physicians and patients alike. For subjective tinnitus in particular, effective therapeutic options with guidelines about key diagnostic criteria are urgently needed.</p

Tinnitus referral pathways within the National Health Service in England: a survey of their perceived effectiveness among audiology staff

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the UK, audiology services deliver the majority of tinnitus patient care, but not all patients experience the same level of service. In 2009, the Department of Health released a Good Practice Guide to inform commissioners about key aspects of a quality tinnitus service in order to promote equity of tinnitus patient care in UK primary care, audiology, and in specialist multi-disciplinary centres. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate utilisation and opinions on pathways for the referral of tinnitus patients to and from English Audiology Departments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We surveyed all audiology staff engaged in providing tinnitus services across England. A 36-item questionnaire was mailed to 351 clinicians in all 163 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts identified as having a tinnitus service. 138 clinicians responded. The results presented here describe experiences and opinions of the current patient pathways to and from the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The most common referral pathway was from general practice to a hospital-based Ear, Nose & Throat department and from there to a hospital-based audiology department (64%). Respondents considered the NHS tinnitus referral process to be generally effective (67%), but expressed needs for improving GP referral and patients' access to services. 'Open access' to the audiology clinic was rarely an option for patients (9%), nor was the opportunity to access specialist counselling provided by clinical psychology (35%). To decrease the number of inappropriate referrals, 40% of respondents called for greater awareness by referrers about the audiology tinnitus service.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Respondents in the present survey were generally satisfied with the tinnitus referral system. However, they highlighted some potential targets for service improvement including 1] faster and more appropriate referral from GPs, to be achieved through education on tinnitus referral criteria, 2] improved access to psychological services through audiologist training, and 3] ongoing support from tinnitus support groups, national charities, or open access to the tinnitus clinic for existing patients.</p

Temporal auditory and visual motion processing of children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder and dyslexia.

OBJECTIVE: Auditory processing disorder (APD) is diagnosed on the basis of listening difficulties despite normal audiogram, although the cause is unknown. This study examined the hypothesis that the underlying cause of APD is a modality-specific deficit in auditory temporal processing and also considered how far the auditory impairments in APD differ from those in children with dyslexia. DESIGN: Performance of children diagnosed with APD (N = 22) was compared with that of a normative group (N = 98) as well as with children with dyslexia (N = 19) on a battery of temporal auditory tasks; 2-Hz frequency modulation (FM), 40-Hz FM, and iterated rippled noise detection as well as a control task (240-Hz FM), which is thought to draw on peripheral spectral mechanisms. Visual tasks were coherent form and coherent motion detection. RESULTS: On average, the APD group performed more poorly than the normative group on the 40-Hz FM, 240-Hz FM, and iterated rippled noise tasks. There were no significant differences between the APD and dyslexia group's performance and no evidence for a specific temporal auditory impairment. A higher proportion of children in the APD group performed poorly (&lt;-1 SD) on the visual tasks than those in the normative group. Auditory psychophysical performance correlated positively with the performance on the SCAN-C, a standardized test of auditory processing, but not with reading ability. CONCLUSIONS: The research did not support a modality-specific impairment of temporal auditory processing as being the underlying cause of APD. In both the APD and dyslexia groups, a similar proportion displayed poor auditory performance, and this does not seem entirely accounted for by attention or performance I.Q. However, the significance of these auditory difficulties is uncertain. Serious difficulties with auditory assessment were also identified. Currently, auditory perceptual deficits may be better seen as a part of a multifactorial description of learning problems rather than as part of a diagnostic category in their own right