CEDRA: A Tool to Help Consumers Assess Risk for Ear Disease.

This article introduces the Consumer Ear Disease Risk Assessment (CEDRA) tool. CEDRA is a brief questionnaire designed to screen for targeted ear diseases. It offers an opportunity for consumers to self-screen for disease before seeking a hearing device and may be used by clinicians to help their patients decide the appropriate path to follow in hearing healthcare. Here we provide highlights of previously published validation in the context of a more thorough description of CEDRA's development and implementation. CEDRA's sensitivity and specificity, using a cut-off score of 4 or higher, was 90% and 72%, respectively, relative to neurotologist diagnoses in the initial training sample used to create the scoring algorithm (n = 246). On a smaller independent test sample (n = 61), CEDRA's sensitivity and specificity were 76% and 80%, respectively. CEDRA has readability levels similar to many other patient-oriented questionnaires in hearing healthcare, and informal reports from pilot CEDRA-providers indicate that the majority of patients can complete it in less than 10 min. As the hearing healthcare landscape changes and provider intercession is no longer mandated, CEDRA provides a measure of safety without creating a barrier to access.

A Retrospective Estimate of Ear Disease Detection Using the "Red Flags" in a Clinical Sample.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of two red flag protocols in detecting ear diseases associated with changes in hearing. DESIGN: The presence of red-flag symptoms was determined in a chart review of 307 adult patients from the Mayo Clinic Florida Departments of Otorhinolaryngology and Audiology. Participants formed a convenience sample recruited for a separate study. Neurotologist diagnosis was the criterion for comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 251 patient files retained for analysis, 191 had one or more targeted diseases and 60 had age- or noise-related hearing loss. Food and Drug Administration red flags sensitivity was 91% (confidence interval [CI], 86 to 95%) and specificity was 72% (CI, 59 to 83%). American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery red flags sensitivity was 98% (CI, 95 to 99%) and specificity was 20% (CI, 11 to 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders must determine which diseases are meaningful contraindications for hearing aid use and whether these red-flag protocols have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. As direct-to-consumer models of hearing devices increase, a disease detection method that does not require provider intercession would be useful.

Development and Initial Validation of a Consumer Questionnaire to Predict the Presence of Ear Disease.

Importance: The already large population of individuals with age- or noise-related hearing loss in the United States is increasing, yet hearing aids remain largely inaccessible. The recent decision by the US Food and Drug Administration to not enforce the medical examination prior to hearing aid fitting highlights the need to reengineer consumer protections when increasing accessibility. A self-administered tool to estimate ear disease risk would provide disease surveillance without posing an unreasonable barrier to hearing aid procurement. Objective: To develop and validate a consumer questionnaire for the self-assessment of risk for ear diseases associated with hearing loss. Design, Setting, and Participants: The questionnaire was developed using established methods including expert opinion to validate and create questions, and cognitive interviews to ensure that questions were clear to respondents. Exploratory structural equation modeling, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to determine sensitivity and specificity with blinded neurotologist opinion as the criterion for evaluation. Patients 40 to 80 years old with ear or hearing complaints necessitating a neurotologic examination and a control group of participants with a diagnosis of age- or noise-related hearing loss participated at the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology and Audiology of Mayo Clinic Florida. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of the prototype questionnaire to identify individuals with targeted diseases. Results: Of 307 participants (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [9.8] years; 148 [48%] female), 75% (n = 231) were enrolled with targeted disease(s) identified on neurotologic assessment and 25% (n = 76) with age- or noise-related hearing loss. Participants were randomly divided into a training sample (80% [n = 246; 185 with disease, 61 controls]) and a test sample (20% [n = 61; 46 with disease, 15 controls]). Using a simple scoring method, a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%) and specificity of 61% (95% CI, 47%-73%) were established in the training sample. Applying this cutoff to the test sample resulted in 85% (95% CI, 71%-93%) sensitivity and 47% (95% CI, 22%-73%) specificity. Conclusions and Relevance: This is the first self-assessment tool designed to assess an individual's risk for ear disease. Our preliminary results demonstrate a high sensitivity to disease detection. A further validated and refined version of this questionnaire may serve as an efficacious tool for improving access to hearing health care while minimizing the risk for missed ear diseases.

Identifying and Prioritizing Diseases Important for Detection in Adult Hearing Health Care.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research note is to identify and prioritize diseases important for detection in adult hearing health care delivery systems. METHOD: Through literature review and expert consultation, the authors identified 195 diseases likely to occur in adults complaining of hearing loss. Five neurotologists rated the importance of disease on 3 dimensions related to the necessity of detection prior to adult hearing aid fitting. RESULTS: Ratings of adverse health consequences, diagnostic difficulty, and presence of nonotologic symptoms associated with these diseases resulted in the identification of 104 diseases potentially important for detection prior to adult hearing aid fitting. CONCLUSIONS: Current and evolving health care delivery systems, including direct-to-consumer sales, involve inconsistent means of disease detection vigilance prior to device fitting. The first steps in determining the safety of these different delivery methods are to identify and prioritize which diseases present the greatest risk for poor health outcomes and, thus, should be detected in hearing health care delivery systems. Here the authors have developed a novel multidimensional rating system to rank disease importance. The rankings can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative detection methods and to inform public health policy. The authors are currently using this information to validate a consumer questionnaire designed to accurately identify when pre- fitting medical evaluations should be required for hearing aid patients.