OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the association of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and the results of newborn hearing screening(NHS).
METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted in a cohort of newborns who were born between June 2021 to December 2021 and underwent neonatal hearing screening.GDM was diagnosed according to the 75 g 2 h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-28 gestational weeks.A total of 369 pregnant women at the same hospital were individually matched in a 1:2 ratio by maternal age (±2 years), gestational age (±3 days) and sex of newborn.Chi-square test was utilized to evaluate associations between GDM and the results of NHS.
RESULTS: Abnormal NHS results in the GDM group was more frequent than non-GDM group.When comparing the two groups (GDM case and contol), we found significant differences (p < 0.05) between them.Whereas the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) by delivery modes in both case and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Maternal history of GDM could lead to significantly higher failling rate of NHS.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the peripheral-to-central auditory systems of people with coronavirus disease 2019 to a well-matched control group and examine the long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on the auditory system.
METHODS: Participants who were outpatients of coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 30) were compared with a well-matched control group (n = 30). Behavioural and electrophysiological tests were performed, and tests were repeated at six months in the coronavirus disease 2019 group.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in the right ear at 10 kHz (p = 0.007) and 12.5 kHz (p = 0.028), and in the left ear at 10 kHz (p = 0.040) and 12.5 kHz (p = 0.040) between groups. The groups had no difference regarding the other audiological test results (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Extended high-frequency thresholds were affected in the coronavirus disease 2019 patients. No other findings indicated that the peripheral-to-central auditory system was affected. The effect on extended high-frequency thresholds appeared permanent, but no clinically significant new, late-onset auditory system effects were observed.

UNASSIGNED: In recent years, neonatal hearing screening (NHS) has gained rapid traction in both developed and developing nations. However, the efficacy of these efforts depends on comprehensive standardization across all screening facets. This study aimed to assess the status and quality of NHS by investigating the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of hearing screening practitioners regarding NHS.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, and an online questionnaire based on the knowledge-attitude/belief (A/B)-practice model was distributed to all NHS practitioners in Luzhou, western China. Valid questionnaires were examined and uniformly graded.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 63 valid questionnaires were collected. The practitioners were mainly female (96.83%), with nursing backgrounds (63.49%), and undergraduate degrees (66.67%). Most had ≤5 years of experience (74.60%) and had junior/intermediate titles (93.65%). The NHS within the Luzhou area started in 2006 with provincial institutions, expanding to 42 institutions by 2022. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the A/B score and the conducting years of each NHS institution (p < .05) as well as between the Knowledge (K) and Practice (P) scores (p < .01). No significant correlation was found between the K score, P score, A/B score, and working years of practitioners (p > .05), or in the total score of NHS institutions at different levels or in different counties by one-way ANOVA (p > .05).
UNASSIGNED: It has been 17 years since the first medical institution in Luzhou launched NHS, and the overall performance of practitioners from different institutions has been consistent in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, or level of practice. However, there is room for further improvement in both the professional development of individuals and aspects related to work, such as health education and long-term follow-up.

Hearing rehabilitation with auditory training (AT) is necessary to improve speech perception ability in patients with hearing loss. However, face-to-face AT has not been widely implemented due to its high cost and personnel requirements. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a patient-friendly, mobile-based AT program.
In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of hearing rehabilitation with our chat-based mobile AT (CMAT) program for speech perception performance among experienced hearing aid (HA) users.
A total of 42 adult patients with hearing loss who had worn bilateral HAs for more than 3 months were enrolled and randomly allocated to the AT or control group. In the AT group, CMAT was performed for 30 minutes a day for 2 months, while no intervention was provided in the control group. During the study, 2 patients from the AT group and 1 patient from the control group dropped out. At 0-, 1- and 2-month visits, results of hearing tests and speech perception tests, compliance, and questionnaires were prospectively collected and compared in the 2 groups.
The AT group (n=19) showed better improvement in word and sentence perception tests compared to the control group (n=20; P=.04 and P=.03, respectively), while no significant difference was observed in phoneme and consonant perception tests (both P>.05). All participants were able to use CMAT without any difficulties, and 85% (17/20) of the AT group completed required training sessions. There were no changes in time or completion rate between the first and the second month of AT. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in questionnaire surveys.
After using the CMAT program, word and sentence perception performance was significantly improved in experienced HA users. In addition, CMAT showed high compliance and adherence over the 2-month study period. Further investigations are needed to validate long-term efficacy in a larger population.
Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) KCT0006509; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=22110&search_page=L.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing options are becoming available for clinicians and healthcare professionals who use smartphone-based applications (apps) to identify hearing loss. The use of smartphone-based apps for newborn hearing screening (NHS) has been proposed as an alternative screening method in NHS programs. This study aims to compare the screening outcomes of a smartphone-based otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening device to a commercially available OAE screening device.
METHODS: NHS was conducted in the post-natal maternity ward and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of two tertiary public healthcare hospitals over a period of 8 months. Within participant DPOAE and TEOAE screening outcomes of a smartphone-based OAE device (hearOAE) were compared to that of the Otodynamics ILO V6.
RESULTS: A total of 176 infants (n = 352 ears; 48.9 % female) underwent NHS (DPOAE n = 176; TEOAE n = 176). The mean age at was 4.5 days (SD 11.3). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were higher with the hearOAE with TEOAE NHS, and equivalent or higher SNR at four out of six frequencies with DPOAEs. Mean and total noise levels were significantly lower for the hearOAE compared to the Otodynamics with DPOAEs noise levels of five out of six frequencies being equivalent to, or lower than the Otodynamics (p < 0.001). Lower noise levels are likely to be advantageous in less-than-ideal test conditions. Inter-device DPOAE comparison indicated no statistically significant difference in the refer rate between the devices (p = 0.238). DPOAE pass rates between devices differed in 6 ears (p > 0.05), and in 20 ears for TEOAEs, with the hearOAE demonstrating a higher TEOAE pass rate (p = 0.009). The hearOAE did, however, demonstrate lower noise levels at three out five frequencies, which may have impacted the pass rate. No statistically significant correlation was found between the independent variables and the screening outcome (pass/refer) for TEOAEs using either device (p = 0.105 to 0.810). A high concordance of NHS outcomes within-participants of 89.7 % and 85.0 % for DPOAE and TEOAE respectively, was measured.
CONCLUSIONS: The mHealth based OAE device demonstrated good agreement in NHS outcomes compared to a commercially available device. This verifies the performance of the novel smartphone based OAE device, and may facilitate increased accessibility of decentralised NHS service in resource constrained populations.

OBJECTIVE: Pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing assessment. However, it requires access to specialized equipment. Smartphone audiometry applications (apps) have been developed to perform automated threshold audiometry and could allow patients to perform self-administered screening or monitoring. This study aimed to assess the validity and feasibility of patients using apps to self-assess hearing thresholds at home, with comparison to PTA.
METHODS: A multi-center, prospective randomized study was conducted amongst patients undergoing PTA in clinics. Participants were randomly allocated to one of four publicly-available apps designed to measure pure tone thresholds. Participants used an app once in optimal sound-treated conditions and a further three times at home. Ear-specific frequency-specific thresholds and pure tone average were compared using Pearson correlation coefficient. The percentage of app hearing tests with results within ±10 dB of PTA was calculated. Patient acceptability was assessed via an online survey.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine participants submitted data. The results of two at-home automated smartphone apps correlated strongly/very strongly with PTA average and their frequency-specific median was within ±10 dB accuracy. Smartphone audiometry performed in sound-treated and home conditions were very strongly correlated. The apps were rated as easy/very easy to use by 90% of participants and 90% would be happy/very happy to use an app to monitor their hearing.
CONCLUSIONS: Judicious use of self-performed smartphone audiometry was both valid and feasible for two of four apps. It could provide frequency-specific threshold estimates at home, potentially allowing assessments of patients remotely or monitoring of fluctuating hearing loss.
METHODS: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:2864-2870, 2024.

According to statistics, hyperbilirubinemia is observed during the first week of life in approximately 60% of full-term and 80% of premature newborns. It is known that indirect bilirubin has a neurotoxic effect. Accumulation of unconjugated bilirubin in some brain structures may appear to be a temporary or unexpected impairment in auditory, motor, or cognitive function. The narrowing of the OAE spectrum and low amplitude of the response, the increase in the latent periods of III, IV, V peaks, as well as the prolongation of the time of the central sound conduction of the III-V and I-V waves in all newborns with hyperilirubinemia, indicates a pathology of hearing of central origin with impaired conduction along the auditory pathways at the level the lower and middle thirds of the pons of the brain (Р ≤ 0.05).

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of hearing loss increases with age. Untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer communication abilities and negative health consequences, such as increased risk of dementia, increased odds of falling, and depression. Nonetheless, evidence is insufficient to support the benefits of universal hearing screening in asymptomatic older adults. The primary goal of the present study was to compare three hearing screening protocols that differed in their level of support by the primary care (PC) clinic and provider. The protocols varied in setting (in-clinic versus at-home screening) and in primary care provider (PCP) encouragement for hearing screening (yes versus no).
METHODS: We conducted a multisite, pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 660 adults aged 65 to 75 years; 64.1% female; 35.3% African American/Black completed the trial. Three hearing screening protocols were studied, with 220 patients enrolled in each protocol. All protocols included written educational materials about hearing loss and instructions on how to complete the self-administered telephone-based hearing screening but varied in the level of support provided in the clinic setting and by the provider. The protocols were as follows: (1) no provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, (2) provider encouragement to complete the hearing screening at home, and (3) provider encouragement and clinical support to complete the hearing screening after the provider visit while in the clinic. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the hearing screening within 60 days of a routine PC visit. Secondary outcomes following patient access of hearing healthcare were also considered and consisted of the percentage of patients who completed and failed the screening and who (1) scheduled, and (2) completed a diagnostic evaluation. For patients who completed the diagnostic evaluation, we also examined the percentage of those who received a hearing loss intervention plan by a hearing healthcare provider.
RESULTS: All patients who had provider encouragement and support to complete the screening in the clinic completed the screening (100%) versus 26.8% with encouragement to complete the screening at home. For patients who were offered hearing screening at home, completion rates were similar regardless of provider encouragement (26.8% with encouragement versus 22.7% without encouragement); adjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.94). Regarding the secondary outcomes, roughly half (38.9-57.1% depending on group) of all patients who failed the hearing screening scheduled and completed a formal diagnostic evaluation. The percentage of patients who completed a diagnostic evaluation and received a hearing loss intervention plan was 35.0% to 50.0% depending on the group. Rates of a hearing loss intervention plan by audiologists ranged from 28.6% to 47.5% and were higher compared with those by otolaryngology providers, which ranged from 15.0% to 20.8% among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the pragmatic clinical trial showed that offering provider encouragement and screening facilities in the PC clinic led to a significantly higher rate of adherence with hearing screening associated with a single encounter. However, provider encouragement did not improve the significantly lower rate of adherence with home-based hearing screening.

To understand factors associated with outcomes in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that evaluated a telemedicine specialty referral intervention for school hearing screenings in 15 rural Alaskan communities.
Hearing Norton Sound was a mixed methods cluster-randomized controlled trial that compared a telemedicine specialty referral pathway (intervention) to a standard primary care referral pathway (control) for school hearing screenings. As a mixed methods trial, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed, and integrated. Main trial results are published elsewhere, but integration of community-specific quantitative outcomes and qualitative results have not yet been reported. The constant comparative method was used to analyze qualitative data from semistructured interviews with six stakeholder groups across all 15 communities. Descriptive statistics were used to describe community-specific proportions of follow-up in both trial years. Qualitative and quantitative results were integrated to reveal relationships between contextual factors and follow-up outcomes across communities.
The Hearing Norton Sound trial enrolled 1481 children from October 2017 to March 2019, with a total of 790 children requiring referral. Of the children who referred in the telemedicine specialty referral pathway communities (intervention), 68.5% received follow-up (268/391), compared to 32.1% (128/399) in primary care referral communities (control)(previously reported). When broken down by community, the mean proportion receiving follow-up was 75.26% (SD 22.5) and 37.9% (SD 11.4) for the telemedicine specialty referral communities and primary care referral communities, respectively. For qualitative data collection, semistructured interviews were conducted with 101 individuals between December 2018 and August 2019. Six stakeholder groups participated: elders (n = 14), parents (n = 25), children (n = 11), teachers/school staff (n = 18), principals (n = 6), and healthcare providers/clinic staff (n = 27). Six overall factors related to the outcomes of the telemedicine specialty referral pathway emerged during analysis: clinic capacity, personnel ownership and engagement, scheduling, telemedicine equipment/processes, communication, and awareness of the need for follow-up. We integrated these factors with the community-specific follow-up percentages and found associations for four of the six qualitative factors: clinic capacity, personnel ownership and engagement, communication, and awareness. An association was not seen for scheduling and telemedicine equipment/processes, which had variable relationships with the follow-up outcome.
The Hearing Norton Sound trial demonstrated that a telemedicine specialty referral pathway can close the gap on children lost to follow up after school hearing screening. As a whole, the intervention profoundly increased the proportion of children receiving follow-up, but there was variability in outcomes within and between communities. To understand this variability, we analyzed community-specific intervention outcomes alongside community member feedback on factors related to the intervention. We identified four key factors that contributed to the success of the intervention. Attention to these factors will be essential to successful adaptation and implementation of this telemedicine specialty referral intervention and other similar interventions in future work in rural Alaska and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a functional model of the drivers behind why families may decline early intervention services following the identification of a child as D/deaf or hard of hearing.
METHODS: This model was developed using a modified eDelphi method. Invited experts (N = 155) were provided proposed models of why families may decline early intervention services in accordance with current literature. In the first phase of feedback, participants (n = 23) provided changes they would make to the model to be more in line with their perceptions of lost to intervention. These changes were implemented, and a second phase of feedback with participants (n = 25) moved to accept the model as presented.
RESULTS: Agreement was reached on five main barriers to early intervention access for children who have been identified as D/deaf or hard of hearing (family experience, family culture, perceived vulnerability, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers). Each of these main barriers has associated examples of how they may manifest across different early intervention programs and situations.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first theoretical model of why loss to intervention happens within early hearing detection and intervention. Having a model provides the opportunity for future work to implement novel approaches to support families during the early intervention enrollment process.