Background: The burden of hearing loss among older adults could be mitigated with appropriate care. This study compares implementation of three hearing screening strategies in primary care, and examines the reliability and validity of patient self-assessment, primary care providers (PCP) and diagnostic audiologists in the identification of 'red flag' conditions (those conditions that may require medical consultation and/or intervention). Methods: Six primary care practices will implement one of three screening strategies (2 practices per strategy) with 660 patients (220 per strategy) ages 65-75 years with no history of hearing aid use or diagnosis of hearing loss. Strategies differ on the location and use of PCP encouragement to complete a telephone-based hearing screen (tele-HS). Group 1: instructions for tele-HS to complete at home and educational materials on warning signs and consequences of hearing loss. Group 2: PCP counseling/encouragement on importance of hearing screening, instructions to take the tele-HS from home, educational materials. Group 3: PCP counseling/encouragement, inoffice tele-HS, and educational materials. Patients from all groups who fail the tele-HS will be referred for diagnostic audiological testing and medical evaluation, and complete a self-assessment of red flag conditions at this follow-up appointment. Due to the expected low incidence of ear disease in the PCP cohort, we will enroll a complementary population of patients (N = 500) from selected otolaryngology head and neck surgery clinics in a national practicebased research network to increase the likelihood of occurrence of medical conditions that might contraindicate hearing aid fitting. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who complete the tele-HS within 2 months of the PCP appointment comparing Group 3 (PCP encouragement, in-office tele-HS, education) versus Groups 2 and 1 (education and tele-HS at home, with and without PCP encouragement, respectively). The several secondary outcomes include direct and indirect costs, patient, family and provider attitudes of hearing healthcare, and accuracy of red flag condition evaluations compared with expert medical assessment by an otolaryngology provider.
The objective of this study was to determine high value questions for early detection and prevention of head and neck cancer by querying content experts on patient risk factors relevant to local communities in Southeast Asia (i.e., Vietnam, Laos, China, and Singapore). The Delphi method was employed using three rounds of asynchronous surveying which included participants among five different collaborating medical centers. 60 total survey items were assessed for consensus defined by a priori measures on the relative level of value of these questions for use in head and neck cancer screening. 77% of items reached a consensus and no items were concluded to be of low value despite differences in conclusions regarding relative importance. Survey items focused on patient demographic information and physical examination were examined across variables such as expert department affiliation, academic designation, and years of experience and found to be without statistically significant differences. However, with consensus items related to social risk factors, it was determined that participants who had 15 or more years of experience or identified as otolaryngologists rated these items at a relatively lower value than their peers with less experience (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0017) or outside the field of otolaryngology (p = 0.0101). This study explicitly identifies patient variables to consider in head and neck cancer screening that have not previously been comprehensively or methodically assessed in current literature. Increasing awareness of these risk factors may benefit the design and implementation of future head and neck cancer early detection and prevention programs in Southeast Asia and beyond as well as positively impact head and neck cancer outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.