-
BMC Pediatrics Oct 2021Over 90% of the 50,000 deaf children in the UK have hearing parents, many of whom were not expecting a deaf child and may require specialist support. Deaf children can...
BACKGROUND
Over 90% of the 50,000 deaf children in the UK have hearing parents, many of whom were not expecting a deaf child and may require specialist support. Deaf children can experience poorer long-term outcomes than hearing children across a range of domains. After early detection by the Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programme, parents in the UK receive support from Qualified Teachers of the Deaf and audiologists but resources are tight and intervention support can vary by locality. There are challenges faced due to a lack of clarity around what specific parenting support interventions are most helpful.
METHODS
The aim of this research was to complete a systematic scoping review of the evidence to identify early support interventions for parents of deaf infants. From 5577 identified records, 54 met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers screened papers through three rounds before completing data extraction and quality assessment.
RESULTS
Identified parent support interventions included both group and individual sessions in various settings (including online). They were led by a range of professionals and targeted various outcomes. Internationally there were only five randomised controlled trials. Other designs included non-randomised comparison groups, pre / post and other designs e.g. longitudinal, qualitative and case studies. Quality assessment showed few high quality studies with most having some concerns over risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Interventions commonly focused on infant language and communication followed by parental knowledge and skills; parent wellbeing and empowerment; and parent/child relationship. There were no interventions that focused specifically on parent support to understand or nurture child socio-emotional development despite this being a well-established area of poor outcome for deaf children. There were few UK studies and research generally was not of high quality. Many studies were not recent and so not in the context of recent healthcare advances. Further research in this area is urgently needed to help develop evidence based early interventions.
Topics: Child; Child Development; Communication; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Parent-Child Relations; Parenting; Parents
PubMed: 34686176
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-021-02893-9 -
PloS One 2024Type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been associated with several comorbidities such as ocular, renal, and cardiovascular complications. However, the effect of T1D on the auditory...
OBJECTIVES
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been associated with several comorbidities such as ocular, renal, and cardiovascular complications. However, the effect of T1D on the auditory system and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is still not clear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate whether T1D is associated with hearing impairment.
METHODS
The databases PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Three reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools for Analytical cross-sectional and case-control studies were used to perform quality assessment and risk of bias analysis on eligible studies.
RESULTS
After screening a total of 463 studies, 11 eligible original articles were included in the review to analyze the effects of T1D on the auditory system. The included studies comprised cross-sectional and case-control investigations. A total of 5,792 patients were evaluated across the 11 articles included. The majority of the studies showed that T1D was associated with hearing impairment compared to controls, including differences in PTAs and OAEs, increased mean hearing thresholds, altered acoustic reflex thresholds, and problems with the medial olivocochlear (MOC) reflex inhibitory effect. Significant risk factors included older age, increased disease duration, and higher HbA1C levels.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review suggests that there is a correlation between T1D and impairment on the auditory system. A multidisciplinary collaboration between endocrinologists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists will lead to early detection of hearing impairment in people with T1D resulting in early intervention and better clinical outcomes in pursuit of improving the quality of life of affected individuals.
REGISTRATION
This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023438576).
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Quality of Life; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Hearing Loss
PubMed: 38335215
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298457 -
International Archives of... Jul 2016The literature reports on high-frequency audiometry as one of the exams used on hearing monitoring of individuals exposed to high sound pressure in their work... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The literature reports on high-frequency audiometry as one of the exams used on hearing monitoring of individuals exposed to high sound pressure in their work environment, due to the method́s greater sensitivity in early identification of hearing loss caused by noise. The frequencies that compose the exam are generally between 9 KHz and 20KHz, depending on the equipment.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to perform a retrospective and secondary systematic revision of publications on high-frequency audiometry on hearing monitoring of individuals exposed to occupational noise.
DATA SYNTHESIS
This systematic revision followed the methodology proposed in the Cochrane Handbook, focusing on the question: "Is High-frequency Audiometry more sensitive than Conventional Audiometry in the screening of early hearing loss individuals exposed to occupational noise?" The search was based on PubMed data, Base, Web of Science (Capes), Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), and in the references cited in identified and selected articles. The search resulted in 6059 articles in total. Of these, only six studies were compatible with the criteria proposed in this study.
CONCLUSION
The performed meta-analysis does not definitively answer the study's proposed question. It indicates that the 16 KHz high frequency audiometry (HFA) frequency is sensitive in early identification of hearing loss in the control group (medium difference (MD = 8.33)), as well as the 4 KHz frequency (CA), this one being a little less expressive (MD = 5.72). Thus, others studies are necessary to confirm the HFA importance for the early screening of hearing loss on individuals exposed to noise at the workplace.
PubMed: 27413413
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Global Burden of Disease studies identify hearing loss as the third leading cause of years lived with a disability. Their estimates point to large societal and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Global Burden of Disease studies identify hearing loss as the third leading cause of years lived with a disability. Their estimates point to large societal and individual costs from unaddressed hearing difficulties. Workplace noise is an important modifiable risk factor; if addressed, it could significantly reduce the global burden of disease. In practice, providing hearing protection devices (HPDs) is the most common intervention to reduce noise exposure at work. However, lack of fit of HPDs, especially earplugs, can greatly limit their effectiveness. This may be the case for 40% of users. Testing the fit and providing instructions to improve noise attenuation might be effective. In the past two decades, hearing protection fit-test systems have been developed and evaluated in the field. They are called field attenuation estimation systems. They measure the noise attenuation obtained by individual workers using HPDs. If there is a lack of fit, instruction for better fit is provided, and may lead to better noise attenuation obtained by HPDs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess: (1) the effects of field attenuation estimation systems and associated training on the noise attenuation obtained by HPDs compared to no instruction or to less instruction in workers exposed to noise; and (2) whether these interventions promote adherence to HPD use.
SEARCH METHODS
We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, five other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify studies. We imposed no language or date restrictions. The latest search date was February 2024.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs) exploring HPD fit testing in workers exposed to noise levels of more than 80 A-weighted decibels (or dBA) who use hearing protection devices. The unit 'dBA' reports on the use of a frequency-weighting filter to adjust sound measurement results to better reflect how human ears process sound. The outcome noise attenuation had to be measured either as a personal attenuation rating (PAR), PAR pass rate, or both. PAR pass rate is the percentage of workers who passed a pre-established level of sufficient attenuation from their HPDs, identified on the basis of their individual noise exposure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. We categorised interventions as fit testing of HPDs with instructions at different levels (no instructions, simple instructions, and extensive instructions).
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (756 participants). We did not find any studies that examined whether fit testing and training contributed to hearing protector use, nor any studies that examined whether age, gender, or HPD experience influenced attenuation. We would have included any adverse effects if mentioned by the trial authors, but none reported them. None of the included studies blinded participants; two studies blinded those who delivered the intervention. Effects of fit testing of HPDs with instructions (simple or extensive) versus fit testing of HPDs without instructions Testing the fit of foam and premoulded earplugs accompanied by simple instructions probably does not improve their noise attenuation in the short term after the test (1-month follow-up: mean difference (MD) 1.62 decibels (dB), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.93 to 4.17; 1 study, 209 participants; 4-month follow-up: MD 0.40 dB, 95% CI -2.28 to 3.08; 1 study, 197 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention probably does not improve noise attenuation in the long term (MD 0.15 dB, 95% CI -3.44 to 3.74; 1 study, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Fit testing of premoulded earplugs with extensive instructions on the fit of the earplugs may improve their noise attenuation at the immediate retest when compared to fit testing without instructions (MD 8.34 dB, 95% CI 7.32 to 9.36; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). Effects of fit testing of HPDs with extensive instructions versus fit testing of HPDs with simple instructions Fit testing of foam earplugs with extensive instructions probably improves their attenuation (MD 8.62 dB, 95% CI 6.31 to 10.93; 1 study, 321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and also the pass rate of sufficient attenuation (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.11; 1 study, 321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to fit testing with simple instructions immediately after the test. This is significant because every 3 dB decrease in noise exposure level halves the sound energy entering the ear. No RCTs reported on the long-term effectiveness of the HPD fit testing with extensive instructions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
HPD fit testing accompanied by simple instructions probably does not improve noise attenuation from foam and premoulded earplugs. Testing the fit of foam and premoulded earplugs with extensive instructions probably improves attenuation and PAR pass rate immediately after the test. The effects of fit testing associated with training to improve attenuation may vary with types of HPDs and training methods. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Ear Protective Devices; Noise, Occupational; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Occupational Exposure; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 38757544
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015066.pub2 -
The South African Journal of... Mar 2020Literature suggests that risk factors for middle ear pathologies, such as traumatic injuries and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), exist in mines. However, studies on...
BACKGROUND
Literature suggests that risk factors for middle ear pathologies, such as traumatic injuries and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), exist in mines. However, studies on hearing health in mines seem to focus primarily on occupational noise-induced hearing loss and ignore middle ear pathologies. As a result, there is little documented evidence on the trends of middle ear pathologies in mine workers.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to explore and document published evidence reflecting trends in middle ear pathologies in mine workers.
METHOD
A systematic literature review of studies that reported middle ear pathologies in mine workers was conducted. Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies in English published between January 1994 and December 2018 and reporting on trends in middle ear pathologies in mine workers.
RESULTS
Two research studies met the selection criteria and were included for analysis. One research study used tympanometry with 226 Hz probe tone, while another study used interviews to determine the presence of middle ear pathologies. While these studies indicate that middle ear pathologies exist in individuals working in mines, the evidence is limited.
CONCLUSION
While current data indicate that individuals working in mines may present with middle ear pathologies of varying severities, the evidence is too small to provide a clear trend of middle ear pathologies in individuals working in mines. Therefore, the current limited data suggest a need for further studies to examine middle ear pathologies in individuals working in mines.
Topics: Acoustic Impedance Tests; Ear, Middle; Hearing Loss; Humans; Miners
PubMed: 32242444
DOI: 10.4102/sajcd.v67i2.679