Telepractice delivery of family-centred early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: A scoping review

Abstract

Introduction

The use of telepractice, a method of delivering services through telecommunications technologies that provides two-way, synchronous audio and video signals in real-time, is becoming increasingly commonplace in early childhood education and intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Although the use of telepractice has been validated in the health sector as a viable and effective alternative to in-person service provision, evidence to support its use in the delivery of family-centred early intervention is still emerging. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the current use of telepractice in the delivery of family-centred early childhood intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and their families.

Method

The review followed the framework outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (2015), including an iterative three-step search strategy. Specific inclusion criteria and data extraction fields were outlined in advance.

Results

A total of 23 peer-reviewed publications were included in the review. Most publications (70%) provided anecdotal evidence of the challenges and benefits associated with telepractice. The remaining publications (30%) reported on research studies evaluating the effectiveness of early intervention delivered through telepractice. Of the 23 included papers, 18 viewed the use of telepractice positively while the remaining 5 reported mixed conclusions and the need for more data.

Discussion

Current evidence in the literature indicates that telepractice can be an effective model for delivering family-centred early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. However, more research is needed to substantiate the use of telepractice as a viable alternative to traditional in-person services, rather than being seen as supplemental to such services.

Keywords

Telepractice deaf/hard of hearing family-centred early intervention telehealth tele-intervention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

McCarthy

Muñoz

White

. Teleintervention for infants and young children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Pediatrics 2010; 126(Suppl 1): S52–S8.

Stredler-Brown

. The future of telepractice for children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 435–442.

Hughes

Goehring

Miller

et al.

Pediatric cochlear implant mapping via telepractice. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups 2016; 1: 12–18.

Muñoz

Kibbe

Preston

et al.

Paediatric hearing aid management: A demonstration project for using virtual visits to enhance parent support. Int J Audiol 2016; 56: 77–84.

Smith

Dowthwaite

Agnew

et al.

Concordance between real-time telemedicine assessments and face-to-face consultations in paediatric otolaryngology. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 457–460.

Crowell

Givens

Jones

et al.

Audiology telepractice in a clinical environment: A communication perspective. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011; 120: 441–447.

Tousignant

Boissy

Moffet

et al.

Patients’ satisfaction of healthcare services and perception with in-home telerehabilitation and physiotherapists’ satisfaction toward technology for post-knee arthroplasty: An embedded study in a randomized trial. Telemed J E Health 2011; 17: 376–382.

Sabesan

Kelly

Evans

et al.

A tele-oncology model replacing face-to-face specialist cancer care: Perspectives of patients in North Queensland. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20: 207–211.

Davis

Coleman

Harnar

et al.

Teleneurology: Successful delivery of chronic neurologic care to 354 patients living remotely in a rural state. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20: 473–477.

10.

Moffet

Tousignant

Nadeau

et al.

In-home telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 1129–1141.

11.

Ishani

Christopher

Palmer

et al.

Telehealth by an interprofessional team in patients with CKD: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2016; 68: 41–49.

12.

Segrelles Calvo

Gómez-Suárez

Soriano

et al.

A home telehealth program for patients with severe COPD: The PROMETE study. Respir Med 2014; 108: 453–462.

13.

Mammas

Geropoulos

Kavantzas

et al.

Telemedicine systems in organ transplantation: A feasibility and reliability study of the integrated teleradiological and tele-pathological evaluation of the cardiac graft. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014; 202: 303–306.

14.

Kelso

Fiechtl

Olsen

et al.

The feasibility of virtual home visits to provide early intervention: A pilot study. Infants Young Child 2009; 22: 332–340.

15.

Cason

Behl

Ringwalt

. Overview of states’ use of telehealth for the delivery of early intervention (IDEA Part C) services. Int J Telerehabil 2012; 4: 39–46.

16.

Askvig BA, Peterson S, Liccini H, et al. Tele-intervention in an early intervention home visitation program: A pilot study. Report, Minot State University, USA, October 2015.

17.

McCarthy

Duncan

Leigh

. Telepractice: The Australian experience in an international context. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 297–312.

18.

Stredler-Brown

. Editor’s preface: Current knowledge and best practices for telepractice. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 191–193.

19.

Swanepoel

Hall

JW III

. A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemed J E Health 2010; 16: 181–200.

20.

Govender

Mars

. The use of telehealth services to facilitate audiological management for children: A scoping review and content analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2016; 23: 392–401.

21.

Krumm

. A review of contemporary tele-audiology literature. J Hear Sci 2016; 6: 9–21.

22.

Molini-Avejonas

Rondon-Melo

De La Higuera Amato

et al.

A systematic review of the use of telehealth in speech, language and hearing sciences. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21: 367–376.

23.

Edwards

Stredler-Brown

Houston

. Expanding use of telepractice in speech-language pathology and audiology. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 227–242.

24.

Taylor

Armfield

Dodrill

et al.

A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of using telehealth for paediatric speech and language assessment. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20: 405–412.

25.

Moore T and Larkin H. ‘More than my child's disability…’: A comprehensive literature review about family-centred practice and family experiences of early childhood intervention services. Report, Scope (VIC) Ltd, Australia, December 2005.

26.

Bhopti

Brown

Lentin

. Family quality of life. J Early Interv 2016; 38: 191–211.

27.

Raab M, Dunst CJ, Johnson M, et al. Influences of a responsive interactional style on young children’s language acquisition. Everyday Child Language Learning Reports 4, http://www.puckett.org/CECLL/ECLLReport_4_Responsive.pdf (2013, accessed 15 April 2017).

28.

Bruder

. Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and families for their future. Except Child 2010; 76: 339–355.

29.

Early Childhood Intervention Australia. National Guidelines. Best practice in early childhood intervention, https://www.ecia.org.au/documents/item/186 (2016, accessed 5 May 2017).

30.

Moeller

Carr

Seaver

et al.

Best practices in family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: An international consensus statement. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2013; 18: 429–445.

31.

Boisvert

Lang

Andrianopoulos

et al.

Telepractice in the assessment and treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Dev Neurorehabil 2010; 13: 423–432.

32.

Boisvert

Hall

. The use of telehealth in early autism training for parents: A scoping review. Smart Homecare Technol TeleHealth 2014; 2: 19–27.

33.

Knutsen

Wolfe

Burke

et al.

A systematic review of telemedicine in autism spectrum disorders. Rev J Autism Dev Disord 2016; 3: 330–344.

34.

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ mannual. 2015 edition/supplement. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015.

35.

Arksey

O’Malley

. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19–32.

36.

Levac

Colquhoun

O'Brien

. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69–77.

37.

McCarthy

. Using technology to support children with sensory disability in remote areas: The RIDBC Teleschool model. Telecommun J Aust 2011; 61: 27.1 to 27.7.

38.

McCarthy

. RIDBC Teleschool™: A hub of expertise. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 373–381.

39.

Blaiser

Edwards

Behl

et al.

Telepractice services at Sound Beginnings at Utah State University. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 365–372.

40.

Houston

. TeleIntervention: Improving service delivery to young children with hearing loss and their families through telepractice. Perspect Hear Hear Disord Child 2011; 21: 66–72.

41.

Houston

. Utah State University: Cross-discipline training through the graduate studies program in auditory learning & spoken language. Volta Rev 2010; 110: 323–330.

42.

Houston

Stredler-Brown

. A model of early intervention for children with hearing loss provided through telepractice. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 283–296.

43.

Stith

Stredler-Brown

Greenway

et al.

TeleCITE: Telehealth – A cochlear implant therapy exchange. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 393–402.

44.

Galvan

Case

Houston

. Listening and learning: Using telepractice to serve children and adults with hearing loss. Perspectives on Telepractice 2014; 4: 11–22.

45.

Broekelmann

. ihear® Internet therapy program: A program by St. Joseph Institute for the Deaf. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 417–422.

46.

Douglas

. The Center for Hearing and Speech: Bilingual support services through videoconferencing technology. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 345–356.

47.

Hamren

Quigley

. Implementing coaching in a natural environment through distance technologies. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 403–407.

48.

Lalios

. ConnectHear teleintervention program. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 357–364.

49.

Davis

Hopkins

Abrahams

. Maximizing the impact of telepractice through a multifaceted service delivery model at The Shepherd Centre, Australia. Volta Rev 2012; 112: 383–391.

50.

Flett

. Working with families of young hearing impaired families at a distance: The Taralye Experience. Aust J Educ Deaf 2001; 7: 41–42.

51.

Constantinescu

. Satisfaction with telemedicine for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 267–272.

52.

Havenga

Swanepoel

Le Roux

et al.

Tele-intervention for children with hearing loss: A comparative pilot study. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 116–125.

53.

Blaiser

Behl

Callow-Heusser

et al.

Measuring costs and outcomes of tele-intervention when serving families of children who are deaf/hard-of-hearing. Int J Telerehabil 2013; 5: 3–10.

54.

Brown

Remine

. Flexibility of programme delivery in providing effective family-centred intervention for remote families. Deafness Educ Int 2008; 10: 213–225.

55.

Constantinescu

Waite

Dornan

et al.

A pilot study of telepractice delivery for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20: 135–140.

56.

Behl

Blaiser

Cook

et al.

A multisite study evaluating the benefits of early intervention via telepractice. Infants Young Child 2017; 30: 147–161.

57.

Brown AS. Examination of early intervention delivered via telepractice with families of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. PhD Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, USA, 2015.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB