Access to ear and hearing health is a challenge in developing countries, where the burden of disabling hearing loss is greatest. This study investigated community-based identification of hearing loss using smartphone hearing screening (hearScreen™) operated by community health workers (CHWs) in terms of clinical efficacy and the reported experiences of CHWs.
Method
The study comprised two phases. During phase one, 24 CHWs performed community-based hearing screening as part of their regular home visits over 12 weeks in an underserved community, using automated test protocols employed by the hearScreen™ smartphone application, operating on low-cost smartphones with calibrated headphones. During phase two, CHWs completed a questionnaire regarding their perceptions and experiences of the community-based screening programme.
Results
Data analysis was conducted on the results of 108 children (2–15 years) and 598 adults (16–85 years). Referral rates for children and adults were 12% and 6.5% respectively. Noise exceeding permissible levels had a significant effect on screen results at 25 dB at 1 kHz (p<0.05). Age significantly affected adult referral rates (p < 0.05), demonstrating a lower rate (4.3%) in younger as opposed to older adults (13.2%). CHWs were positive regarding the hearScreen™ solution in terms of usability, need for services, value to community members and time efficiency.
Conclusion
Smartphone-based hearing screening allows CHWs to bring hearing health care to underserved communities at a primary care level. Active noise monitoring and data management features allow for quality control and remote monitoring for surveillance and follow-up.
OlusanyaBONeumannJSaundersJE. The global burden of disabling hearing impairment : A call to action. Bull World Health Organ2014; 92: 367–373.
4.
Archbold S, Lamb B, O’ Neill C, et al. The real cost of adult hearing loss: Reducing its impact by increasing access to the latest hearing technologies, www.earfoundation.org.uk/files/download/869 (2014, accessed 30 April 2014).
5.
FaganJJJacobsM. Survey of ENT services in Africa: Need for a comprehensive intervention. Global Health Action2009; 2: 1932–1939.
6.
World Health Organization (WHO). WHO global estimates on prevalence of hearing loss, www.who.int/pbd/deafness/ estimates (2012, accessed 15 April 2014).
7.
BogardusSTYuehBShekellePG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: Clinical applications. J Am Med Assoc2003; 289: 1986–1990.
8.
Van der LindeJKritzingerA. Perceptions of rural primary healthcare personnel about expansion of early communication intervention. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med2013; 5: 1–11.
9.
SwanepoelDWClarkJLKoekemoerD. Telehealth in audiology: The need and potential to reach underserved communities. Int J Audiol2010; 49: 195–202.
10.
ClarkJLSwanepoelDW. Technology for hearing loss – As we know it, and as we dream it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2014; 9: 408–413.
11.
SwanepoelDWEikelboomRHHunterML. Self-reported hearing loss in baby boomers from the Busselton healthy ageing study: Audiometric correspondence and predictive value. J Am Acad Audiol2013; 24: 514–521.
12.
HarlorADBBowerC. The Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, et al. Hearing assessment in infants and children: Recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics2009; 124: 1252–1263.
13.
MaherDSmeethLSekajugoJ. Health transition in Africa: Practical policy proposals for primary care. Bull World Health Organ2010; 88: 943–948.
14.
HorrocksSAndersonESalisburyC. Systematic review of whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provide equivalent care to doctors. Br Med J2002; 324: 819–823.
15.
SteinJLewinSFairallL. Hope is the pillar of the universe: Health-care providers’ experiences of delivering anti-retroviral therapy in primary health-care clinics in the Free State province of South Africa. Soc Sci Med2007; 64: 954–964.
16.
McCullaghMCFrankK. Addressing adult hearing loss in primary care. J Adv Nurs2013; 69: 896–904.
17.
HoweACMashRJHugoJFM. Developing generalism in the South African context. S Afr Med J2013; 103: 899–900.
SwanepoelDWMyburghHCHoweDM. Smartphone hearing screening with integrated quality control and data management. Int J Audiol2014; 53: 841–849.
22.
Mahomed-AsmailFSwanepoelDWEikelboomRH. Clinical validity of hearScreen™ smartphone hearing screening for school children. Ear HearForthcoming 2015.
23.
BamNMarcusTHugoJ. Conceptualizing community oriented primary care(COPC) – The Tshwane, South Africa, health post model. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med2013; 5: 13–15.
24.
MarcusTS. Community orientated primary care: Origins and history, Pretoria: Minuteman Press Lynnwood, 2014.
25.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006; 3: 77–101.
26.
ShawG. Community health workers bridge gap to hearing loss treatment. Hear J2015; 68: 8–10.
27.
BraunRCatalaniCWimbushJ. Community health workers and mobile technology: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS One2013; 8: e65772.–e65772..
28.
SiderisIGlattkeTJ. A comparison of two methods of hearing screening in the preschool population. J Commun Disord2006; 39: 391–401.
Dodd-MurphyJMurphyWBessFH. Accuracy of school screenings in the identification of minimal sensorineural hearing loss. Am J Audiol2014; 23: 365–373.
31.
PeerSFaganJJ. Hearing loss in the developing world: Evaluating the iPhone mobile device as a screening tool. S Afr Med J2014; 105: 35–39.
32.
NashSDCruickshanksKJKleinR. The prevalence of hearing impairment and associated risk factors: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011; 137: 432–439.
33.
StevensGFlaxmanSBrunskillE. Global and regional hearing impairment prevalence: An analysis of 42 studies in 29 countries. Eur J Publ Health2011; 23: 146–152.
34.
WuWLüJLiY. A new hearing screening system for preschool children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2014; 78: 290–295.
35.
OlusanyaBOWirzSLLuxonLM. Community-based infant hearing screening for early detection of permanent hearing loss in Lagos, Nigeria: A cross-sectional study. Bull World Health Organ2008; 86: 956–963.
36.
ThodiCParazziniMKramerSE. Adult hearing screening: Follow-up and outcomes. Am J Audiol2013; 22: 183–185.
37.
AmlaniAM. Improving patient compliance to hearing healthcare services and treatment through self-efficacy and smartphone applications. Hearing Review2015; 21: 16–16.
38.
LiewSTongSFKarV. Text messaging reminders to reduce non-attendance in chronic disease follow-up: A clinical trial. Br J Gen Pract2009; 59: 916–920.
39.
LeongKCChenWSLeongKW. The use of text messaging to improve attendance in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract2006; 23: 699–705.
40.
PerronNJDaoMDKossovskyMP. Reduction of missed appointments at an urban primary care clinic: A randomised controlled study. BMC Fam Pract2010; 11: 79–79.
41.
International Standardization Organization (ISO) 389-1. Acoustics – Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment – Part 1: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and supra-aural earphones, www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:389:-1:ed-1:v1:en (1998, accessed 30 May 2014).
42.
International Standardization Organization (ISO) 389-9. Acoustics – Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment – Part 9: Preferred test conditions for the determination of reference hearing threshold levels, www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:389:-9:ed-1:v1:en (2009, accessed 30 May 2014).
