Natural history of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study.

Previous studies on the natural history of long-COVID have been few and selective. Without comparison groups, disease progression cannot be differentiated from symptoms originating from other causes. The Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) is a Scotland-wide, general population cohort of adults who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection matched to PCR-negative adults. Serial, self-completed, online questionnaires collected information on pre-existing health conditions and current health six, 12 and 18 months after index test. Of those with previous symptomatic infection, 35% reported persistent incomplete/no recovery, 12% improvement and 12% deterioration. At six and 12 months, one or more symptom was reported by 71.5% and 70.7% respectively of those previously infected, compared with 53.5% and 56.5% of those never infected. Altered taste, smell and confusion improved over time compared to the never infected group and adjusted for confounders. Conversely, late onset dry and productive cough, and hearing problems were more likely following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Impact of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of newborn hearing loss.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unexpected disruptions in patient care, including adherence to the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) 1-3-6 guidelines. These guidelines mandate newborn hearing screening (NHS) by 1 month of age, diagnosis of hearing loss (HL) by 3 months, and referral to Early Intervention by 6 months. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on EHDI benchmarks in a major US city to help clinicians address current needs and prepare for future disruptive events. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed for all patients who did not pass NHS at two tertiary care centers between March 2018 and March 2022. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the periods of time before, during, and after the COVID-19 Massachusetts State of Emergency (SOE). Demographics, medical history, NHS results, Auditory Brainstem Response results, and hearing aid (HA) intervention data were collected. Two-sampled independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to compute rate and time outcomes. RESULTS: 30,773 newborns underwent NHS and 678 failed NHS. There was no difference in 1-month benchmark NHS rates, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis rate post-SOE COVID (91.7%; p = 0.002), and increased 6-month benchmark HA intervention rate post-SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (88.9% vs. 44.4%; p = 0.027). Mean time to NHS was lower during SOE COVID compared to pre-COVID (1.9 days vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.038) and mean time to HL diagnosis was higher during SOE COVID (47.5 days; p < 0.001). Lost to follow-up (LTF) rate at HL diagnosis decreased post-SOE (4.8%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: No differences in EHDI 1-3-6 benchmark rates between pre-COVID and SOE COVID patients were observed. However, increased 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis and 6-month benchmark HA intervention rates and a decreased LTF rate at 3-month benchmark HL diagnosis were observed post-SOE COVID.

Prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 'Hearing loss' has been reported as a clinical atypical symptom in some COVID-19 patients. We searched and collated the existing literature for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of hearing loss during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: An exhaustive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other sources from the inception of the database until 31st December 2022. The Search terms were set to: 'COVID-19', 'SARS-CoV-2', '2019-nCoV', 'hearing impairment', 'hearing loss', 'auditory dysfunction'. The literature data meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Prevalence was pooled from individual studies using a randomized effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in the final analysis, involving 14281 patients with COVID-19 infection, of which 482 patients had varying degrees of hearing loss. Our final meta-analysis demonstrated that the prevalence of hearing loss in COVID-19-positive patients was 8.2% (95%CI 5.0-12.1). Subgroup analysis of age showed that the prevalence of middle-aged and older patients aged 50-60 and over 60 years was 20.6% and 14.8%, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of patients aged 30-40 (4.9%) and 40-50 years (6.0%). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss is one of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 infection, compared with other diseases, it is less likely to attract the attention of clinical experts or researchers. Raising awareness of this disease can not only enable early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss, and improve the quality of life of patients, but also enhance our vigilance against virus transmission, which has important clinical and practical significance.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

Hearing loss and COVID-19: an umbrella review.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 can result in an extensive range of extrapulmonary, and neurological signs and symptoms such as olfactory and/or taste dysfunction, and otologic symptoms. The aim of this study was to investigate the hearing loss manifestation from COVID-19. METHODS: The goal of this umbrella review was to examine hearing loss associated with COVID-19 disease. English literature published until October 15, 2022 in online databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was considered for this purpose. Eligibility of the articles for subsequent data extraction was evaluated in a two-step selection process with consideration to an inclusion/exclusion criterion. This review followed the PRISMA protocol and the Amstar-2 checklist for quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of four treatment strategies were used by different studies which included oral corticosteroids, intratympanic corticosteroids, combined oral and intratympanic corticosteroids, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Five studies investigated corticosteroid use in the forms of oral or intratympanic injection; four studies reported (complete or partial) hearing improvements after steroid treatment, while one study stated no significant improvement in hearing function. One study reported that oral corticosteroid monotherapy alone was not effective, while vestibular symptoms were ameliorated by a combination of oral prednisone, intratympanic dexamethasone injection, and hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that despite being one of the rare complications of COVID-19, hearing loss can impact a patient's quality of life. The most common type reported was sensorineural hearing loss, which can be diagnosed with variable techniques.

The impact of COVID-19 on communicative accessibility and well-being in adults with hearing impairment: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 measures, such as face masks, have clear consequences for the communicative accessibility of people with hearing impairment because they reduce speech perception. As communication is essential to participate in society, this might have impact on their mental well-being. This study was set out to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 measures on the communicative accessibility and well-being of adults with hearing impairment. METHOD: Two groups of adults took part in this study, with (N = 150) and without (N = 50) hearing loss. The participants answered statements on a five point Likert-scale. Statements regarding communicative accessibility involved speech perception abilities, behavioral changes and access to information. Well-being was measured at the overall level in daily community life and at work, and in particular also with respect to perceived stress. We asked participants with hearing impairment on their audiological needs during the pandemic. RESULTS: Significant group differences were found on speech perception abilities due to COVID-19 measures. Behavioral changes were observed to compensate for the loss in speech perception. Hearing loss was associated with an increased request for repetition or for removal of the face mask. Using information technology (e.g. Zoom) or contacting colleagues did not pose any major problems for the hearing group, whereas participants with hearing loss gave mixed responses. A significant difference emerged between groups on well-being in daily life, but not on well-being at work or perceived stress. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the detrimental effect of COVID-19 measures on the communicative accessibility of individuals with hearing loss. It also shows their resilience as only partial group differences were found on well-being. Protective factors are indicated, such as access to information and audiological care.

Is intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection a risk factor for infant hearing loss?

PURPOSE: To determine whether exposure to intrauterine COVID-19 infection causes congenital or late-onset hearing loss in infants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The hearing screening results of infants born in a tertiary hospital between March 2020 and April 2022 with and without a history of intrauterine exposure to COVID-19 infection (36 infants each) were retrospectively analyzed within one month after birth in all infants and additionally at six months after intrauterine COVID-19 infection exposure in the study group. The automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test was used for the hearing evaluation. RESULTS: The polymerase chain reaction test was negative in study group exposed to intrauterine COVID-19 infection. The number of infants admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and the length of ICU stay were significantly higher in this group (p < 0.01). Six infants (16.6 %) in the study group failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but five of these infants passed the second AABR test. A bilateral severe sensorineural hearing loss was detected in one infant (2.77 %). All the infants in the study group underwent the AABR test again at six months, and all infants, except this infant, passed the test. In the control group, five infants (13.88 %) failed the first AABR test bilaterally, but they all passed the second test. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to COVID-19 infection in the intrauterine period does not cause congenital or late-onset hearing loss (within six months) in infants; therefore, gestational COVID-19 infection is not a risk factor for infant hearing loss.

How do face masks impact communication amongst deaf/HoH people?

Face coverings have been key in reducing the spread of COVID-19. At the same time, they have hindered interpersonal communication, particularly for those who rely on speechreading to aid communication. The available research indicated that deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) people experienced great difficulty communicating with people wearing masks and negative effects on wellbeing. Here we extended these findings by exploring which factors predict deaf/HoH people's communication difficulties, loss of information, and wellbeing. We also explored the factors predicting perceived usefulness of transparent face coverings and alternative ways of communicating. We report the findings from an accessible survey study, released in two written and three signed languages. Responses from 395 deaf/HoH UK and Spanish residents were collected online at a time when masks were mandatory. We investigated whether onset and level of deafness, knowledge of sign language, speechreading fluency, and country of residence predicted communication difficulties, wellbeing, and degree to which transparent face coverings were considered useful. Overall, deaf/HoH people and their relatives used masks most of the time despite greater communication difficulties. Late-onset deaf people were the group that experienced more difficulties in communication, and also reported lower wellbeing. However, both early- and late-onset deaf people reported missing more information and feeling more disconnected from society than HoH people. Finally, signers valued transparent face shields more positively than non-signers. The latter suggests that, while seeing the lips is positive to everyone, signers appreciate seeing the whole facial expression. Importantly, our data also revealed the importance of visual communication other than speechreading to facilitate face-to-face interactions.

Characterization of otologic symptoms appearing after COVID-19 vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: Anecdotal reports of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) following COVID-19 vaccination have emerged in the otolaryngology community. Studies have demonstrated no association between COVID-19 vaccination and SSNHL. We aim to characterize the spectrum of otologic symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients seen in the otology clinic at an academic center was performed. Patients completed a questionnaire on the development of new otologic symptoms within 4 weeks of COVID-19 vaccination. Diagnostic and audiometric data was collected retrospectively for patients reporting otologic symptoms. RESULTS: Between May and July 2021, 500 patients were screened. Median age was 56.6 years old, with 59.4 % female and 40.2 % male. 420 patients (84.0 %) were vaccinated, with 58.4 % receiving Pfizer, 29.1 % receiving Moderna, and 3.8 % receiving Johnson & Johnson. 61 patients (14.5 %) reported one or more otologic symptoms within 4 weeks of vaccination, including 21 (5.0 %) with hearing loss, 26 (6.2 %) with tinnitus, 33 (7.9 %) with dizziness, and 19 (4.5 %) with vertigo. Of the 16 patients (3.2 %) reporting tinnitus with no associated hearing loss, 8 were diagnosed with subjective tinnitus and 4 were diagnosed with temporomandibular joint syndrome. Of the 18 patients reporting hearing loss, 11 had exacerbations of underlying pathologies (e.g. Meniere's disease, presbycusis) and 7 were newly diagnosed with SSNHL (1.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reporting otologic symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination received various diagnoses of uncertain etiology. The incidence of SSNHL in these patients is comparable to the general otology patient population. Additional studies are required to determine the incidence of specific diagnoses following vaccination.

Complex Language Use in Children With Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Understanding what is known about the language profiles of children with hearing loss (CHL) is vital so that researchers and teachers can identify the specific complex syntactic structures that CHL may struggle to master. An understanding of which aspects of complex syntax pose difficulties for CHL is necessary to inform the kind of intervention that will facilitate learning complex syntax for this cohort of children. This scoping review aims to identify what is currently known about the complex syntax use of CHL who communicate through spoken language, and uncover gaps in the literature to guide further research. METHOD: Ascoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The Covidence software was utilized to manage the initial and full-text screening process for the search. RESULTS: From a total of 304 studies, 42 studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria. The review highlights the use of broad-based language assessments and limited use of specific descriptions of the types of complex syntactic structures and skills. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for assessment protocols and analysis methods that better support the description of complex syntax profiles for CHL. School-age CHL continue to display challenges with complex syntax development. The review highlighted the need for further research to improve understanding of the complex syntax strengths and vulnerabilities of CHL. Further investigation is needed to better understand their ability to combine ideas and build complexity in their language use, which in turn can inform teaching in schools and interventions for children who require support. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21980177.

Effects of Age at Implantation on Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Children with Short Durations of Single-Sided Deafness.

OBJECTIVE: Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) show reduced language and academic development and report hearing challenges. We aim to improve outcomes in children with SSD by providing bilateral hearing through cochlear implantation of the deaf ear with minimal delay. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 57 children with SSD provided with cochlear implant (CI) between May 13, 2013, and June 25, 2021. SETTING: Tertiary children's hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Children with early onset (n = 40) or later onset of SSD (n = 17) received CIs at ages 2.47 ± 1.58 years (early onset group) and 11.67 ± 3.91 years (late onset group) (mean ± SD). Duration of unilateral deafness was limited (mean ± SD = 1.93 ± 1.56 yr). INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation of the deaf ear. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: Evaluations of device use (data logging) and hearing (speech perception, effects of spatial release from masking on speech detection, localization of stationary and moving sound, self-reported hearing questionnaires). RESULTS: Results indicated that daily device use is variable (mean ± SD = 5.60 ± 2.97, range = 0.0-14.7 h/d) with particular challenges during extended COVID-19 lockdowns, including school closures (daily use reduced by mean 1.73 h). Speech perception with the CI alone improved (mean ± SD = 65.7 ± 26.4 RAU) but, in the late onset group, remained poorer than in the normal hearing ear. Measures of spatial release from masking also showed asymmetric hearing in the late onset group ( t13 = 5.14, p = 0.001). Localization of both stationary and moving sound was poor (mean ± SD error = 34.6° ± 16.7°) but slightly improved on the deaf side with CI use ( F1,36 = 3.95, p = 0.05). Decreased sound localization significantly correlated with poorer self-reported hearing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Benefits of CI in children with limited durations of SSD may be more restricted for older children/adolescents. Spatial hearing challenges remain. Efforts to increase CI acceptance and consistent use are needed.

Is Gestational COVID-19 a Risk Factor for Congenital Hearing Loss?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether COVID-19 during pregnancy is a risk factor for congenital hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Hearing screening test results of 60,223 newborns between March 2020 and May 2021 were screened using the national database. Newborn babies of 570 pregnant women with positive COVID-19 PCR test during pregnancy who met the study criteria were included in the gestational COVID-19 group, and 570 healthy newborns born in the same period were included in the control group. INTERVENTION: Diagnostic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Results of up to three automatic auditory brainstem response tests in the first 30 days of life were used for newborn hearing screening. RESULTS: When the gestational COVID-19 and control groups were compared in terms of demographic data, there was no statistically significant difference for any of the variables (maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, neonate gender, mode of delivery, p > 0.05 for all variables). Of the mothers in the gestational COVID-19 group, 62 (10.9%) had COVID-19 in the first trimester, 181 (31.8%) in the second trimester, and 327 (57.3%) in the third trimester. When the first and second test results of newborn hearing screening were compared between the groups, the number of babies with hearing loss was higher in the gestational COVID-19 group than in the control group (p = 0.025; odds ratio, 1.357; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-1.774; p = 0.006; odds ratio, 4.924; 95% confidence interval, 1.410-17.193, respectively). For the third test results, hearing loss was detected in only one baby in both groups (p = 0.284). When the first, second, and third test results for newborn hearing screening were compared according to the trimesters when COVID-19 positivity was identified, the difference between trimesters was not found to be statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study in the literature of the impact of COVID-19 on newborn hearing. The findings in the study suggest that gestational COVID-19 is not a risk factor for permanent congenital hearing loss. However, because the risk of detecting hearing loss is high in the first 15 days, we emphasize the importance of the third screening test.

EffEctiveness of Prophylactic fOam dressings in the prevention of saCral pressure injuries in at-risk hospitalised patients: the EEPOC trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic dressings are increasingly used to prevent pressure injuries in hospitalised patients. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these dressings is still emerging. This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic silicone foam border dressing in preventing sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. A sample size of 1320 was calculated to have >90% power to detect a 5% difference in the primary outcome at an alpha of 0.05. Adult patients admitted to participating medical-surgical wards are screened for eligibility: ≥18 years, admitted to hospital within the previous 36 h, expected length of stay of ≥24 h, and assessed high risk for hospital-acquired pressure injury. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to either prophylactic silicone foam dressing intervention or usual care without any dressing as the control group via a web-based randomisation service independent of the trial. Patients are enrolled across three Australian hospitals. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of patients who develop a sacral pressure injury. Secondary outcomes include the time to sacral pressure injury, incidence of severity (stage) of sacral pressure injury, cost-effectiveness of dressings, and process evaluation. Participant outcomes are assessed daily for up to 14 days by blinded independent outcome assessors using de-identified, digitally modified sacral photographs. Those who develop a sacral pressure injury are followed for an additional 14 days to estimate costs of pressure injury treatment. Analysis of clinical outcomes will be based on intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on the effect prophylactic dressings have on the development of hospital-acquired sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. A parallel economic evaluation of pressure injury prevention and treatment will enable evidence-informed decisions and policy. The inclusion of a process evaluation will help to explain the contextual factors that may have a bearing on trial results including the acceptability of the dressings to patients and staff. The trial commenced 5 March 2020 and has been significantly delayed due to COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12619000763145. Prospectively registered on 22 May 2019.

The Effects of Virtual Assessment on Capturing Skill Growth in Children With Hearing Loss.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of switching from in-person assessment to virtual assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic on the growth trajectories of children with hearing loss who are learning spoken language. METHOD: Sixty-eight children with typical hearing, 44 children with cochlear implants, and 47 children with hearing aids were assessed with a norm-referenced measure of receptive vocabulary, a criterion-referenced measure of phonological awareness, and a criterion-referenced measure of conceptual print knowledge at least 4 times, at 6-month intervals, between the ages of 4 and 6 years. Of those participants, 26 children with typical hearing, 13 children with cochlear implants, and 13 children with hearing aids entered virtual testing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slopes of growth for children who entered virtual testing were compared to their own slopes prepandemic and to the growth slopes of children who completed all testing in-person, prepandemic. RESULTS: Within-subject comparisons across all measures did not show a change in growth slopes prepandemic to postpandemic. For the measure of conceptual print knowledge, children who were tested during the pandemic showed slower overall growth than children who were tested prepandemic. No effects of hearing status were found across growth on any measure. CONCLUSION: These preliminary data support the use of virtual assessment to measure growth in receptive vocabulary, phonological awareness, and conceptual print knowledge in children with hearing loss learning spoken language.

Combined retinal and choroidal microvasculopathy in a non-diabetic kidney transplant recipient following SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

Purpose: To present a case of a kidney transplant recipient with multiple, concurrent signs of retinal and choroidal microvascular dysfunction following mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Observations: An immunosuppressed, 51-year-old male with a history of kidney transplantation at an earlier stage, presented with bilateral conjunctivitis and blurry vision that coincided with a SARS-CoV-2-positive upper respiratory tract infection. On examination, we observed bilateral vitritis as well as choroidal congestion with signs of outer retinal and inner choroidal microvascular dysfunction. Moreover, cotton wool spots, consistent with inner retinal ischemia were noted while the rest of the clinical findings subsided. Conclusions and importance: COVID-19, a multi-systemic disease that primarily affects the respiratory system, has been associated with a number of seemingly diverse ocular phenotypes, where both inflammation and ischemia seem to play role. Moreover, the presence of underlying systemic comorbidities may have an impact on both infection outcomes and the ocular complications of the disease. Kidney transplant recipients that develop SARS-CoV-2 infection may be at higher risk for both choroidal and retinal microvasculopathy with prominent choroidal congestion, pigment epitheliopathy with or without subretinal fluid and hyper-reflective changes in optical coherence tomography suggesting ischemia in different retinal layers.

Reframing Our Health Care System for Patients With Hearing Loss.

PURPOSE: Nearly 20% of U.S. Americans report a hearing loss, yet our current health care system is poorly designed and equipped to effectively care for these individuals. Individuals with hearing loss report communication breakdowns, inaccessible health information, reduced awareness and training by health care providers, and decreased satisfaction while struggling with inadequate health literacy. These all contribute to health inequities and increased health care expenditures and inefficiencies. It is time to reframe the health care system for these individuals using existing models of best practices and accessibility to mitigate inequities and improve quality of care. METHOD: A review of system-, clinic-, provider-, and patient-level barriers, along with existing and suggested efforts to improve care for individuals with hearing loss, are presented. RESULTS: These strategies include improving screening and identification of hearing loss, adopting universal design and inclusion principles, implementing effective communication approaches, leveraging assistive technologies and training, and diversifying a team to better care for patients with hearing loss. Patients should also be encouraged to seek social support and resources from hearing loss organizations while leveraging technologies to help facilitate communication. CONCLUSIONS: The strategies described introduce actionable steps that can be made at the system, clinic, provider, and patient levels. With implementation of these steps, significant progress can be made to more proactively meet the needs of patients with hearing loss. Presentation Video: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21215843.

Interpreter-mediated interactions between people using a signed respective spoken language across distances in real time: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Communication between people who are deaf and sign and people who use a spoken language is possible by means of an interpreter. Interpreting in real time can be performed at a distance, which differs from interpreting face-to-face. Due to COVID-19, interpretation at a distance has increased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to map the existing literature to identify key characteristics by addressing the following question: What is known about interpreted mediated interactions between people using a signed respective spoken language across distances in real time? DESIGN: Eight online databases, complemented by a search in one nonindexed journal of relevance to the review, were used to identify original studies published in 2010-2020, and 17 publications met the inclusion criteria. Charting of the data revealed insight from 17 original studies that were extracted, summarized, and reported. RESULTS: Four key characteristics were identified: (1) advantages and challenges in remote interpreting; (2) the need for training in remote interpreting and video relay service (VRS); (3) regulations and organizational structures of VRS; and (4) the interpreter as an active party in VRS. CONCLUSION: Remote interpreting has several challenges but also advantages. Knowledge of these kinds of interactions is limited, and further research must be initiated and realized, not least due to technological developments and the increased number of interpreting events.

Unilateral, permanent hearing loss following severe COVID-19 infection.

Hearing loss following COVID-19 infection has been scarcely reported in the literature.A previously well middle-aged man presented to the emergency department with breathlessness and cough 8 days after testing positive for COVID-19 in the community. The patient was treated in the intensive care unit due to respiratory failure. Following extubation and step down to ward-level care 2 months later, the patient reported sudden left-sided hearing loss and tinnitus. Ear examination was unremarkable and pure tone audiometry revealed profound left sensorineural hearing loss. MRI of the internal acoustic meatus did not show any cerebellopontine lesions. Intravenous steroid therapy as well as oral steroids were not successful in improvement of hearing.A few cases of COVID-19-associated sensorineural hearing loss have been reported; the majority report irreversible loss. Awareness of this phenomenon and early referral for specialist review and audiological assessment to attempt salvage of hearing can reduce hearing disability.

Chilean spanish transcultural adaptation of CAP-II and SIR scales in an online format for parents of children with hearing aids or cochlear implants / Adaptación transcultural al español chileno de las escalas CAP-II y SIR en formato online para padres de niños(as) con audífonos o implantes cocleares

La adquisición de lengua oral representa un desafío para niñas/os sordas/os o con pérdida auditiva (NSPA) que utilizan audífonos o implante coclear (CI). Tomar decisiones a tiempo durante el tratamiento con dispositivos es esencial y requiere de evaluaciones adecuadas. Dos instrumentos usados en la toma de decisiones son las escalas "Categories of Auditory Performance Index II" (CAP-II) y "Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale" (SIR). Estas escalas han mostrado ser útiles para la evaluación continua del desarrollo de habilidades auditivas y de la lengua oral en variados idiomas, pero estas no están disponibles para el español chileno. El objetivo de este estudio es crear traducciones en español chileno de las escalas CAP-II y SIR, las que puedan ser usadas como auto-reporte online por padres y cuidadores con el fin de asistir a profesionales en el monitoreo del progreso de niños/as NSPA, considerando las restricciones impuestas por el COVID-19. El método usado en el proceso comienza con la traducción de una propuesta de auto-reporte de las versiones originales en inglés de las escalas CAP-II y SIR. Finalmente, las versiones en español chileno fueron testeadas en 107 padres-cuidadores de niñas/os NSPA con CI. Los resultados sugieren que estos instrumentos serían adecuados para su uso en el contexto chileno.

Spoken language acquisition is challenging for very young deaf or hard-of-hearing children (DHH) who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants (CI). Timely decision-making for treatment is essential for these children and requires suitable assessments. Two such assessments are the Categories of Auditory Performance Index II (CAP-II) and the Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale (SIR). These have been shown to be helpful for the ongoing evaluation of developing speech perception and spoken language skills in various languages, but they are not available in Chilean Spanish. This study aimed to create a Chilean Spanish translation of the CAP-II and SIR, appropriate for online self-administration by parents-caregivers in Chile, to assist professionals in monitoring DHH children's progress, considering the COVID-19 restrictions. The methods used in the process started with translating a self-report proposal from the original English versions of the CAP-II and SIR scales. Finally, the Chilean Spanish versions were tested in 107 Chilean parents-caregivers of DHH children with CIs. The results suggest these instruments are suitable for use in a Chilean context.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities.

Importance: Despite persistent care delivery inequities, limited studies have assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of and factors in COVID-19 vaccination among US adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults who participated in the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey from April 2021 through March 2022. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccine initiation, vaccine series completion, and determinants of health care access, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Exposures: Vision disability (serious difficulty seeing even with eyeglasses or blindness) and hearing disability (serious difficulty hearing even with a hearing aid or deafness). Main Outcomes and Measures: First dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted estimated probabilities and 95% CIs of COVID-19 vaccine initiation were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for survey week, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Results: In this study of 916 085 US adults (weighted population, 192 719 992; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.9] years; 52.0% women), most participants had initiated the COVID-19 vaccine series (82.7%). Adults with serious difficulty seeing (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -7.5% to -5.1%; P < .001) and blindness (mean difference, -20.1%; 95% CI, -25.1% to -15.0%; P < .001) had lower vaccination rates compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Adults with serious difficulty hearing (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.7%; P = .003) and deafness (mean difference, -17.7%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -13.6%; P < .001) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with blindness (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -11.1% to -1.5%; P = .009) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with deafness (mean difference, -5.5%; 95% CI, -9.2% to -1.9%; P = .003) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities; this information may inform initiatives to promote equitable and accessible vaccination. Additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among adults with vision or hearing disabilities and to address disparities.