Towards universal access: A review of global efforts in ear and hearing care.

Hearing loss affects 1.6 billion people worldwide and disproportionately affects those in low- and middle-income countries. Despite being largely preventable or treatable, ear and hearing conditions result in significant and lifelong morbidity such as delayed language development, reduced educational attainment, and diminished social well-being. There is a need to augment prevention, early identification, treatment, and rehabilitation for these conditions. Expanded access to hearing screening, growth of the hearing health workforce, and innovations in ear and hearing care delivery systems are among the changes that are needed. To that end, the World Health Organization has prioritized ear and hearing care as a component of Universal Health Coverage, and recent publications have advanced the priority for ear and hearing care. Efforts are underway at the national levels around the world, as evidenced by countries like Zambia and Nigeria that have integrated ear and hearing care within national health strategies. While significant strides have been made in improving access, a critical need remains for additional research, advocacy, and intervention to ensure that no one is left behind in the goal to achieve universal access to ear and hearing care.

Service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in low- and middle-income countries or resource-limited settings: A systematic scoping review.

Hearing loss is an important global public health issue which can be alleviated through treatment with hearing aids. However, most people who would benefit from hearing aids do not receive them, in part due to challenges in accessing hearing aids and related services, which are most salient in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and other resource-limited settings. Innovative approaches for hearing aid service delivery can overcome many of the challenges related to access, including that of limited human resources trained to provide ear and hearing care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to synthesize evidence on service delivery approaches for hearing aid provision in LMIC and resource-limited settings. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE) for peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2022 that focused on service delivery approaches related to hearing aids in LMIC or resource-limited settings. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were included, which described hospital-based (3 studies), large-scale donation program (1 studies), community-based (7 studies), and remote (telehealth; 4 studies) service delivery approaches. Key findings are that hearing aid services can be successfully delivered in hospital- and community-based settings, and remotely, and that both qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can provide quality hearing aid services. Service delivery approaches focused on community-based and remote care, and task sharing among qualified hearing care providers and trained non-specialists can likely improve access to hearing aids worldwide, thereby reducing the burden of untreated hearing loss.

Monitoring hearing and vision functions in older adults: rationale and process.

Hearing and vision impairment are highly prevalent in ageing individuals and are significant public health concerns given their meaningful impacts on individuals and society. Yet, many cases of both visual and hearing impairment remain unidentified and thus, unaddressed. This article describes the rationale and process of monitoring for visual and hearing impairment in older adults, by summarising guidance and resources available from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that were developed based upon the best current available evidence. It is recommended that vision screening be offered at least annually to adults aged over 50 years and hearing screening be offered every 5 years to adults aged 50-64 years, and every 1-3 years to adults aged 65 years or older. Both hearing and vision screening can be conducted in community, home or clinical settings by trained health workers with simple equipment. More specifically, vision screening can be conducted with a simple eye chart. Hearing screening can be conducted without specialised equipment by using pure tones set to a fixed level, an automated mobile- or web-based digits-in-noise test, or the whispered voice test. Hearing screening can also be conducted in audiology clinics using pure-tone air conduction threshold testing. There exists WHO guidance to support the monitoring of hearing and vision impairment, which, when warranted, can facilitate referral for comprehensive assessment and prompt appropriate, person-centred interventions to mitigate the negative consequences of hearing and vision impairment.

An analysis of the inclusion of ear and hearing care in national health policies, strategies and plans.

Ear- and hearing-related conditions pose a significant global health burden, yet public health policy surrounding ear and hearing care (EHC) in low- and middle-income countries is poorly understood. The present study aims to characterize the inclusion of EHC in national health policy by analysing national health policies, strategies and plans in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic. Three EHC keywords were searched, including ear*, hear* and deaf*. The terms 'human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)', 'tuberculosis' and 'malaria' were included as comparison keywords as these conditions have historically garnered political priority in global health. Of the 194 World Health Organization Member States, there were 100 national policies that met the inclusion criteria of document availability, searchable format, language and absence of an associated national EHC strategy. These documents mentioned EHC keywords significantly less than comparison terms, with mention of hearing in 15 documents, ears in 11 documents and deafness in 3 documents. There was a mention of HIV/AIDS in 92 documents, tuberculosis in 88 documents and malaria in 70 documents. Documents in low- and middle-income countries included significantly fewer mentions of EHC terms than those of high-income countries. We conclude that ear and hearing conditions pose a significant burden of disease but are severely underrepresented in national health policy, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Combined hearing and vision screening programs: A scoping review.

Background and aim: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 billion and 2.2 billion people have hearing and vision impairment, respectively. The burden of these non-communicable diseases is highest in low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of services and health professionals. The WHO has recommended universal health coverage and integrated service delivery to improve ear and eye care services. This scoping review describes the evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs. Method: A keyword search of three electronic databases, namely Scopus, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science, was conducted, resulting in 219 results. After removing duplicates and screening based on eligibility criteria, data were extracted from 19 included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews were followed. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Most studies (63.2%) were from high-income countries, with 31.6% from middle-income and 5.2% from low-income countries. The majority of studies (78.9%) involved children and the four studies reporting on adults all included adults above 50 years of age. Vision screening was most commonly performed with the "Tumbling E" and "Snellen Chart," while hearing was typically screened using pure tone audiometry. Studies reported referral rates as the most common outcome with sensitivity and specificity rates not reported in any included articles. Reported benefits of combined vision and hearing screenings included earlier detection of vision and hearing difficulties to support functioning and quality of life as well as resource sharing for reduced costs. Challenges to combined screening included ineffective follow-up systems, management of test equipment, and monitoring of screening personnel. Conclusions: There is limited research evidence for combined hearing and vision screening programs. Although potential benefits are demonstrated, especially for mHealth-supported programs in communities, more feasibility and implementation research are required, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and across all age groups. Developing universal, standardized reporting guidelines for combined sensory screening programs is recommended to enhance the standardization and effectiveness of combined sensory screening programs.

Prevalence and global estimates of unsafe listening practices in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of unsafe listening practices from exposure to personal listening devices (PLDs) and loud entertainment venues in individuals aged 12-34 years, and to estimate the number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss from unsafe listening worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of unsafe listening practices from PLDs and loud entertainment venues. We searched three databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2021 that reported unsafe listening practices in individuals aged 12-34 years. Pooled prevalence estimates (95% CI) of exposed populations were calculated using random effects models or ascertained from the systematic review. The number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss worldwide was estimated from the estimated global population aged 12-34 years, and best estimates of exposure to unsafe listening ascertained from this review. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (corresponding to data from 35 records and 19 046 individuals) were included; 17 and 18 records focused on PLD use and loud entertainment venues, respectively. The pooled prevalence estimate of exposure to unsafe listening from PLDs was 23.81% (95% CI 18.99% to 29.42%). There was limited certainty (p>0.50) in our pooled prevalence estimate for loud entertainment venues. Thus, we fitted a model as a function of intensity thresholds and exposure duration to identify the prevalence estimate as 48.20%. The global estimated number of young people who could be at risk of hearing loss from exposure to unsafe listening practices ranged from 0.67 to 1.35 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Unsafe listening practices are highly prevalent worldwide and may place over 1 billion young people at risk of hearing loss. There is an urgent need to prioritise policy focused on safe listening. The World Health Organization provides comprehensive materials to aid in policy development and implementation.

Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Permanent bilateral hearing loss (PBHL) is a serious condition in newborns, with a prevalence of at least one per 1000 live births. However, there has been no recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening programs (UNHS). Methods: We registered our study protocol on PROSPERO CRD42020175451. Primary outcomes were any identification of PBHL (ie, PBHL diagnosed at any time), age of identification of PBHL, and neurodevelopment. Two reviewers searched standard databases to March 2022 and extracted data. We used fixed and random effects meta-analysis to pool data and graded the certainty of evidence using standard methods. Results: The search retrieved 2834 records. We identified five studies reporting on the effects of UNHS vs no UNHS in 1 023 610 newborns. The relative risk of being identified with PBHL before nine months in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 3.28 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.84, 5.85, one study, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). The mean difference in the age of identification of PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 13.2 months earlier (95% CI = -26.3, -0.01, two studies, 197 newborns, very low certainty evidence). The relative risk of infants eventually being identified with PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.89, 1.14, three studies, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). At the latest follow-up at 3-8 years, the standardised mean difference (SMD) in receptive language development between infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 0.60 z scores (95% CI = 0.07, 1.13, one study, 101 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 7.72 (95% CI = -0.03, 15.47, three studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). The SMD in expressive language development was 0.39 z scores (95% CI = -0.20, 0.97, one study, 87 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 10.10 scores (95% CI = 1.47, 18.73, 3 studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). Conclusions: UNHS programs result in earlier identification of PBHL and may improve neurodevelopment. UNHS should be implemented across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020175451).

Global burden of ototoxic hearing loss associated with platinum-based cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents cisplatin and carboplatin are widely used in cancer treatment worldwide and may result in ototoxic hearing loss. The high incidence of cancer and salient ototoxic effects of platinum-based compounds pose a global public health threat. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, to estimate the prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss associated with treatment with cisplatin and/or carboplatin via a systematic review and meta-analysis. Second, to estimate the annual global burden of ototoxic hearing loss associated with exposure to cisplatin and/or carboplatin. For the systematic review, three databases were searched (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection) and studies that reported prevalence of objectively measured ototoxic hearing loss in cancer patients were included. A random effects meta-analysis determined pooled prevalence (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of ototoxic hearing loss overall, and estimates were stratified by treatment and patient attributes. Estimates of ototoxic hearing loss burden were created with published global estimates of incident cancers often treated with platinum-based compounds and cancer-specific treatment rates. Eighty-seven records (n = 5077 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss associated with cisplatin and/or carboplatin exposure was 43.17% [CI 37.93-48.56%]. Prevalence estimates were higher for regimens involving cisplatin (cisplatin only: 49.21% [CI 42.62-55.82%]; cisplatin & carboplatin: 56.05% [CI 45.12-66.43%]) versus carboplatin only (13.47% [CI 8.68-20.32%]). Our crude estimates of burden indicated approximately one million individuals worldwide are likely exposed to cisplatin and/or carboplatin, which would result in almost half a million cases of hearing loss per year, globally. There is an urgent need to reduce impacts of ototoxicity in cancer patients. This can be partially achieved by implementing existing strategies focused on primary, secondary, and tertiary hearing loss prevention. Primary ototoxicity prevention via otoprotectants should be a research and policy priority.

Newborn Hearing Screening Benefits Children, but Global Disparities Persist.

There is substantial evidence that newborn hearing screening (NHS) reduces the negative sequelae of permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) if performed in programs that aim to screen all newborns in a region or nation (often referred to as Universal Newborn Hearing Screening or UNHS). The World Health Organization (WHO) has called in two resolutions for the implementation of such programs and for the collection of large-scale data. To assess the global status of NHS programs we surveyed individuals potentially involved with newborn and infant hearing screening (NIHS) in 196 countries/territories (in the following text referred to as countries). Replies were returned from 158 countries. The results indicated that 38% of the world's newborns and infants had no or minimal hearing screening and 33% screened at least 85% of the babies (hereafter referred to as UNHS). Hearing screening programs varied considerably in quality, data acquisition, and accessibility of services for children with PCHL. In this article, we summarize the main results of the survey in the context of several recent WHO publications, particularly the World Report on Hearing, which defined advances in the implementation of NHS programs in the Member States as one of three key indicators of worldwide progress in ear and hearing care (EHC).

Global return on investment and cost-effectiveness of WHO's HEAR interventions for hearing loss: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: To address the growing prevalence of hearing loss, WHO has identified a compendium of key evidence-based ear and hearing care interventions to be included within countries' universal health coverage packages. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and their budgetary effect for countries, we aimed to analyse the investment required to scale up services from baseline to recommended levels, and the return to society for every US$1 invested in the compendium. METHODS: We did a modelling study using the proposed set of WHO interventions (summarised under the acronym HEAR: hearing screening and intervention for newborn babies and infants, pre-school and school-age children, older adults, and adults at higher risk of hearing loss; ear disease prevention and management; access to technologies such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, or hearing assistive technologies; and rehabilitation service provision), which span the life course and include screening and management of hearing loss and related ear diseases, costs and benefits for the national population cohorts of 172 countries. The return on investment was analysed for the period between 2020 and 2030 using three scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario, a progress scenario with a scale-up to 50% of recommended coverage, and an ambitious scenario with scale-up to 90% of recommended coverage. Using data for hearing loss burden from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, a transition model with three states (general population, diagnosed, and those who have died) was developed to model the national populations in countries. For the return-on-investment analysis, the monetary value of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted in addition to productivity gains were compared against the investment required in each scenario. FINDINGS: Scaling up ear and hearing care interventions to 90% requires an overall global investment of US$238·8 billion over 10 years. Over a 10-year period, this investment promises substantial health gains with more than 130 million DALYs averted. These gains translate to a monetary value of more than US$1·3 trillion. In addition, investment in hearing care will result in productivity benefits of more than US$2 trillion at the global level by 2030. Together, these benefits correspond to a return of nearly US$15 for every US$1 invested. INTERPRETATION: This is the first-ever global investment case for integrating ear and hearing care interventions in countries' universal health coverage services. The findings show the economic benefits of investing in this compendium and provide the basis for facilitating the increase of country's health budget for strengthening ear and hearing care services. FUNDING: None.

Attitudes towards Safe Listening Measures in Entertainment Venues: Results from an International Survey among Young Venue-Goers.

BACKGROUND: Sustained exposure to excess noise in recreational settings is among the main causes of hearing loss among young adults worldwide. Within a global effort to develop standards for safe listening in entertainment venues, this study aims at identifying modifiable factors (knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs), which can hinder or facilitate the acceptance of safe listening measures in public venues among young venue-goers. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed inspired by the Health Belief Model. It was divided into five sections: (i) socio-demographics (ii) listening habits, (iii) experiences with loud music, (iv) knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, and (v) willingness to change. Participants were recruited through social media. RESULTS: 2264 individuals aged 16-35 completed the questionnaire. Most visited entertainment venues relatively infrequently, with the majority of them only visiting once per month or less. Nevertheless, most reported having experienced the negative consequences of listening to loud music. Overall, most people were favorable towards preventive measures, especially quiet areas. CONCLUSION: Our findings stress the urge to address the issue of safe listening in public venues and support an approach based on the introduction of standards. Moreover, they provide us with information on key factors to be considered when introducing and communicating preventive measures in public entertainment venues.

Training, supervision and performance of Community Health Workers in the delivery of ear and hearing care to 321 community members in rural Uganda.

OBJECTIVES: Community Health Workers are one way to address the shortage of ear and hearing care specialists in low-resource settings. However, there are few reports evaluating training and service delivery by Community Health Workers. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We trained 13 Community Health Workers in primary ear and hearing care in Mukono District, Uganda. Community Health Workers attended a two-day training workshop and received remote supervision thereafter during service delivery in the community. An ear camp was held at the local health centre every two months, where a local ENT specialist could assess referred cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical and diagnostic skills and decision-making were assessed using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination, with scores recorded at baseline and six months. Service delivery was evaluated by analysing the following: (i) number of individuals evaluated; (ii) treatments delivered; (iii) cases referred for specialist opinion; (iv) proportion of appropriately referred cases; and (v) agreement between Community Health Worker and specialist diagnosis. RESULTS: Observed Structured Clinical Examination scores were high and stable for six months. 312 individuals were screened in the community by the Community Health Workers, with 298 classified as having an abnormality. Care was delivered in the community to 167 of these, and the remaining 131 referred to the ear camp. Diagnostic agreement was 39%, but 98% of referrals were deemed "appropriate" by the ENT specialist. 27 individuals self-presented to the ear camp without prior assessment by a Community Health Worker, and 97% of these were deemed appropriate. CONCLUSION: Trained Community Health Workers can play an important role in delivering ear and hearing services. Future work should look to explore this model in other contexts and/or compare it to other models of service delivery.

Prevalence of aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in drug-resistant tuberculosis patients: A systematic review.

Objectives estimate the prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss in drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients treated with aminoglycoside antibiotics via a systematic review and meta-analysis. Estimate the annual preventable cases of hearing loss in DR-TB patients and leverage findings to discuss primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. Methods studies published between 2005 and 2018 that reported prevalence of post-treatment hearing loss in DR-TB patients were included. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to determine pooled prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss overall and by medication type. Preventable hearing loss cases were estimated using World Health Organization (WHO) data on DR-TB treatment and prevalence determined by the meta-analysis. Results eighteen studies from 10 countries were included. Pooled prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was 40.62% CI [32.77- 66.61%] for all drugs (kanamycin: 49.65% CI [32.77- 66.61%], amikacin: 38.93% CI [26.44-53.07%], capreomycin: 10.21% CI [4.33-22.21%]). Non-use of aminoglycosides may result in prevention of approximately 50,000 hearing loss cases annually. Conclusions aminoglycoside use results in high prevalence of ototoxic hearing loss. Widespread prevention of hearing loss can be achieved by following updated WHO guidelines for DR-TB treatment. When hearing loss cannot be avoided, secondary and tertiary prevention should be prioritized.

Estimating the global costs of hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the global costs of hearing loss in 2019. DESIGN: Prevalence-based costing model. STUDY SAMPLE: Hearing loss data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Additional non-hearing related health care costs, educational support, exclusion from the labour force in countries with full employment and societal costs posed by lost quality of life were determined. All costs were reported in 2019 purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted international dollars. RESULTS: Total global economic costs of hearing loss exceeded $981 billion. 47% of costs were related to quality of life losses, with 32% due to additional costs of poor health in people with hearing loss. 57% of costs were outside of high-income countries. 6.5% of costs were for children aged 0-14. In scenario analysis a 5% reduction in prevalence of hearing loss would reduce global costs by $49 billion. CONCLUSION: This analysis highlights major economic consequences of not taking action to address hearing loss worldwide. Small reductions in prevalence and/or severity of hearing loss could avert substantial economic costs to society. These cost estimates can also be used to help in modelling the cost effectiveness of interventions to prevent/tackle hearing loss and strengthen the case for investment.

Ear and Hearing Care Workforce: Current Status and its Implications.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide comprehensive global evidence on the availability of ear and hearing care (EHC) professionals and real-life examples that showcase the impact of workforce shortages on the workload faced by existing professionals. METHODS: Six sources of data were used to estimate availability of EHC workforce: a scoping literature review, World Health Organization (WHO) National Health Workforce Accounts platform, WHO Member States survey and regional consultations, hearing care organizations survey, and official government statistics. EHC professionals' workload undertaking common interventions was estimated through the WHO workload indicators of staffing need human resource management tool. RESULTS: With data on otolaryngologists from 138, audiologists from 102, speech and language therapists from 124, and teachers of the deaf from 86 countries, this study revealed large gaps in availability of EHC cadres. The majority of countries in the African region had less than one professional in each cadre per million in comparison with most European countries having up to 50 times higher densities. Workload indicators of staffing need calculations revealed the challenging workload faced by existing EHC professionals, with ratios between existing and required staff of 0.01-0.86. CONCLUSION: There is an enormous shortage of EHC professionals and urgent actions are needed to ensure sufficient and equitable access to services. Task sharing, a novel approach for improving access to hearing care alongside the development of new cadres, can be a vital strategy in overcoming the shortage of highly qualified providers in many settings, even in well-resourced health systems, to facilitate equitable access to required EHC services.

Methodological quality of clinical guidelines for universal newborn hearing screening.

AIM: To review existing guidelines for universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), identify those that provide comprehensive and clear recommendations on the subject, and provide a brief overview. METHOD: A scoping literature review was performed in PubMed, the Guidelines International Network library, and national guideline databases to identify guidelines on newborn hearing screening developed or updated between 2004 and 2019. The quality of the guidelines was checked with the Checklist for the Quality Assessment of Guidelines (AGREE II). RESULTS: Six guidelines met all the inclusion criteria. All six were based on the 1-3-6 benchmark (screening completed by 1mo, audiological diagnosis by 3mo, enrolment in early intervention by 6mo). However, the guidelines varied in terms of their recommendations for the application of screening methods, role of health professionals in the screening process, and quality. Based on the AGREE II score, flexibility, adaptability, and foundation role for all other guidelines, the 2019 guidelines of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing position statement were identified as the most appropriate to be recommended for adaptation by countries or programmes. INTERPRETATION: The diversity in the existing guidance can be confusing for countries and institutions that are planning to develop universal hearing screening programmes. As more countries and organizations develop their newborn hearing screening programmes, they will need examples to emulate. This review provides an evaluation of the quality, comprehensiveness, and applicability of existing clinical guidelines that can serve as a facilitator for countries, institutions, or organizations in their planning and implementation of a UNHS programme.

Global and regional needs, unmet needs and access to hearing aids.

Objectives: This article aims to estimate the global and regional needs, unmet needs and access to hearing aids, as well as the morbidity that can be averted by their use.Design: The study was based on Global Burden of Disease data. Study sample: Hearing impaired individuals "in need" of a hearing aid were defined as those in the moderate, moderately severe, and severe categories.Results: Globally, 401.4 million people are 'in need' of hearing aids. The large majority (83%) of them do not use hearing aids, with higher levels being in some regions such as the African region (90%). Accounting for hearing aid coverage reduced morbidity by 14.6% (95% UI 13.1- 16) - from 25 million YLDs to 21.3 million YLDs. It was estimated that if every single prevalent case in need would use a hearing aid, the burden of disease in this population would be reduced from the untreated 25 million YLDs to 10.3 million YLDs - a reduction of 59%.Conclusions: Development of innovative low-cost technologies with effective service delivery models, policy and regulatory changes to improve access, and combatting the stigma and lack of awareness are some of the potential solutions to improve access to hearing aids.