Usability of a Mobile App for Improving Literacy in Children With Hearing Impairment: Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Children with hearing loss, even those identified early and who use hearing aids or cochlear implants, may face challenges in developing spoken language and literacy. This can lead to academic, behavioral, and social difficulties. There are apps for healthy children to improve their spoken language and literacy and apps that focus on sign language proficiency for children with hearing loss, but these apps are limited for children with hearing loss. Therefore, we have developed an app called Hear Me Read, which uses enhanced digital stories as therapy tools for speech, language, and literacy for children with hearing loss. The platform has therapist and parent/child modes that allow (1) the selection of high-quality, illustrated digital stories by a speech-language pathologist, parent, or child; (2) the modification of digital stories for a multitude of speech and language targets; and (3) the assignment of stories by a therapist to facilitate individualized speech and language goals. In addition, Hear Me Read makes the caregiver a core partner in engagement through functionality, whereby the caregiver can record video and audio of themselves to be played back by the child. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the user experience of the Hear Me Read app through a focus group study with caregivers and their children. METHODS: We recruited 16 participants (8 children with and without hearing loss and 8 caregivers) to participate in 1-hour focus groups. Caregivers and children interacted with the app and discussed their experiences through a semistructured group interview. We employed thematic analysis methods and analyzed the data. We used feedback from the focus group to improve the elements of the app for a larger clinical trial assessing the impact of the app on outcomes. RESULTS: We identified three themes: default needs, specific needs, and family needs. Participants found the app to be esthetically pleasing and easy to use. The findings of this study helped us to identify usability attributes and to amend app functionalities to best fit user needs. Caregivers and children appreciated the enhancements, such as highlighting of parts of speech and caregiver reading of video playback, which were made possible by the digital format. Participants expressed that the app could be used to enhance family reading sessions and family interaction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this focus group study are promising for the use of educational apps designed specifically for those with hearing loss who are pursuing listening and spoken language as a communication outcome. Further investigation is needed with larger sample sizes to understand the clinical impact on relevant language and literacy outcomes in this population.

Standard clinical risk factors for difficult laryngoscopy are not independent predictors of intubation success with the GlideScope.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the first-attempt tracheal intubation incidence using the GlideScope videolaryngoscope is higher in patients with predicted increased risk of difficult laryngoscopy, and to assess the ability of other a priori defined standard risk factors to predict first-attempt intubation success, in aggregate and by forming scores. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Operating room in a tertiary-care academic center. PATIENTS: 357 patients intubated with the GlideScope for nonemergent general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: Mallampati airway class was used to create two groups of patients, one with higher and the other, lower, potential difficult laryngoscopy (Mallampati classes 3-4 and 1-2, respectively). Intubation success on the first attempt with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope in patients with a Mallampati class 3 or 4 airway versus those with Mallampati class 1 or 2 airway was tested. We also evaluated the predictive ability of the Mallampati airway class (1 and 2 vs 3 and 4) along with 9 other possible predictors of difficult intubation on first-attempt intubation success: gender, age, body mass index, level of training within our anesthesia residency program (Clinical Anesthesia Resident years 1, 2, and 3), ASA physical status, mouth opening, thyromental distance, neck flexion, and neck extension. MAIN RESULTS: None of the standard predictors of difficult intubation was significantly associated with outcome after adjusting for other predictors. A multivariable model containing the aggregate set of variables predicted outcome significantly better than a risk score formed as the sum of 10 predictors ("Risk 10"; P = 0.0176). CONCLUSIONS: With GlideScope-assisted tracheal intubation, Mallampati airway class is not an independent risk factor for difficult intubation. Other standard clinical risk factors of difficulty with direct laryngoscopy also do not appear to be individually predictive of first-attempt success of tracheal intubation.