Permanent hearing loss is a leading global health care burden, with 1 in 10 people affected to a mild or greater degree. A shortage of trained healthcare professionals and associated infrastructure and resource limitations mean that hearing health services are unavailable to the majority of the world population. Utilizing information and communication technology in hearing health care, or tele-audiology, combined with automation offer unique opportunities for improved clinical care, widespread access to services, and more cost-effective and sustainable hearing health care. Tele-audiology demonstrates significant potential in areas such as education and training of hearing health care professionals, paraprofessionals, parents, and adults with hearing disorders; screening for auditory disorders; diagnosis of hearing loss; and intervention services. Global connectivity is rapidly growing with increasingly widespread distribution into underserved communities where audiological services may be facilitated through telehealth models. Although many questions related to aspects such as quality control, licensure, jurisdictional responsibility, certification and reimbursement still need to be addressed; no alternative strategy can currently offer the same potential reach for impacting the global burden of hearing loss in the near and foreseeable future. Sumario La pérdida auditiva permanente es una importante carga para los cuidados de la salud a nivel mundial, con 1 de cada 10 personas afectadas en grado ligero o mayor. La escasez de profesionales entrenados en cuidados de la salud y de infraestructura asociada y la limitación de recursos determina que los servicios de salud auditiva no estén disponibles para la mayoría de la población mundial. La utilización de información y tecnología de la comunicación para los cuidados de la salud auditiva o teleaudiología, combinada con la automatización, ofrece oportunidades únicas para mejorar los cuidados clínicos, ampliar el acceso a los servicios y tener cuidados de salud auditiva costoefectivos y sustentables. La Teleaudiología ha demostrado un potencial significativo en áreas como las de educación y adiestramientio de profesionales de la salud auditiva, profesionales afines, padres y adultos con problemas auditivos; tamiz de problemas auditivos; diagnóstico de pérdidas auditivas y servicios de intervención. La conectividad global está creciendo rápidamente y ha aumentado de manera generalizada su distribución en comunidades con pocos servicios, en donde los servicios audiológicos pueden facilitarse a través de modelos de telesalud. No obstante, existen muchas dudas que deben resolverse y que están relacionadas con aspectos como control de calidad, regulación del ejercicio profesional, responsabilidad jurisdiccional, certificación y reembolso de servicios, pero no existe como alternativa ninguna otra estrategia que pueda ofrecer actualmente el mismo potencial, para impactar el peso global de las pérdidas auditivas en el futuro cercano o previsible.

Hearing loss is a pervasive global healthcare concern with an estimated 10% of the global population affected to a mild or greater degree. In the absence of appropriate diagnosis and intervention it can become a lifelong disability with serious consequences on the quality of life and societal integration and participation of the affected persons. Unfortunately, there is a major dearth of hearing healthcare services globally, which highlights the possible role of telehealth in penetrating the underserved communities. This study systematically reviews peer-reviewed publications on audiology-related telehealth services and patient/clinician perceptions regarding their use. Several databases were sourced (Medline, SCOPUS, and CHINAL) using different search strategies for optimal coverage. Though the number of studies in this field are limited available reports span audiological services such as screening, diagnosis, and intervention. Several screening applications for populations consisting of infants, children, and adults have demonstrated the feasibility and reliability of telehealth using both synchronous and asynchronous models. The diagnostic procedures reported, including audiometry, video-otoscopy, oto-acoustic emissions, and auditory brainstem response, confirm clinically equivalent results for remote telehealth-enabled tests and conventional face-to-face versions. Intervention studies, including hearing aid verification, counseling, and Internet-based treatment for tinnitus, demonstrate reliability and effectiveness of telehealth applications compared to conventional methods. The limited information on patient perceptions reveal mixed findings and require more specific investigations, especially post facto surveys of patient experiences. Tele-audiology holds significant promise in extending services to the underserved communities but require considerable empirical research to inform future implementation.

To determine if a smartphone application could be used as a calibrated screening audiometer with real-time noise monitoring for school screening using automated test sequences. The investigation comprised three studies. Study 1 evaluated calibration accuracy across four Samsung S5301 smartphones (Android v4.0.4) using commercial Sennheiser HD202 headphones. Study 2 involved referencing smartphone microphone sensitivity to narrowband noise intensity as measured in octave bands by a sound-level meter between 30 and 75 dB SPL (5 dB increments). Study 3 compared screening outcomes of smartphone based and conventional hearing screening. Study 2: 15 normal-hearing subjects (age range, 18-22 years; all female). Study 3: 162 children (324 ears) aged 5 to 7 years. Smartphone calibration at 20, 30, and 40 dB was within 1 dB of recommended reference equivalent thresholds levels. Microphone calibration for noise monitoring had maximum variability across phones of 0.9, 0.6, and 2.9 dB at 1, 2, and 4 kHz, respectively, from reference intensities (30 to 75 dB SPL). Screening outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between smartphone and conventional audiometry with an overall referral rate of 4.3% and 3.7%, respectively. The newly developed smartphone application can be accurately calibrated for audiometry with valid real-time noise monitoring, and clinical results are comparable to conventional screening.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the validity (test-retest reliability and accuracy) of automated threshold audiometry compared with the gold standard of manual threshold audiometry was conducted. A systematic literature review was completed in peer-reviewed databases on automated compared with manual threshold audiometry. Subsequently a meta-analysis was conducted on the validity of automated audiometry. A multifaceted approach, covering several databases and using different search strategies was used to ensure comprehensive coverage and to cross-check search findings. Databases included: MEDLINE, Scopus, and PubMed; a secondary search strategy was the review of references from identified reports. Reports including within-subject comparisons of manual and automated threshold audiometry were selected according to inclusion/exclusion criteria before data were extracted. For the meta-analysis weighted mean differences (and standard deviations) on test-retest reliability for automated compared with manual audiometry were determined to assess the validity of automated threshold audiometry. In total, 29 reports on automated audiometry (method of limits and the method of adjustment techniques) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most reports included data on adult populations using air conduction testing with limited data on children, bone conduction testing and the effects of hearing status on automated audiometry. Meta-analysis test-retest reliability for automated audiometry was within typical test-retest variability for manual audiometry. Accuracy results on the meta-analysis indicated overall average differences between manual and automated air conduction audiometry (0.4 dB, 6.1 SD) to be comparable with test-retest differences for manual (1.3 dB, 6.1 SD) and automated (0.3 dB, 6.9 SD) audiometry. No significant differences (p > 0.01; summarized data analysis of variance) were seen in any of the comparisons between test-retest reliability of manual and automated audiometry compared with differences between manual and automated audiometry. Automated audiometry provides an accurate measure of hearing threshold, but validation data are still limited for (1) automated bone conduction audiometry; (2) automated audiometry in children and difficult-to-test populations and; (3) different types and degrees of hearing loss.

Objective: This study investigated the reliability, accuracy, and time efficiency of automated hearing assessment using a computer-based telemedicine-compliant audiometer. Materials and Methods: Thirty normal-hearing subjects and eight hearing-impaired subjects were tested with pure-tone air conduction audiometry (125–8,000 Hz) in a manual and automated configuration in a counterbalanced manner. For the normal-hearing group each test was repeated to determine test-retest reliability and recording time, and preference for threshold-seeking method (manual vs. automated) was documented. Results: Test-retest thresholds were not significantly different for manual and automated testing. Manual audiometry test-retest correspondence was 5 dB or less in 88% of thresholds compared to 91% for automated audiometry. Thresholds for automated audiometry did not differ significantly from manual audiometry with 87% of thresholds in the normal-hearing group and 97% in the hearing-impaired group, corresponding within 5 dB or less of each other. The largest overall average absolute difference across frequencies was 3.6 ± 3.9 dB for the normal-hearing group and 3.3 ± 2.4 for the hearing-impaired group. Both techniques were equally time efficient in the normal-hearing population, and 63% of subjects preferred the automated threshold-seeking method. Conclusions: Automated audiometry provides reliable, accurate, and time-efficient hearing assessments for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. Combined with an asynchronous telehealth model it holds significant potential for reaching underserved areas where hearing health professionals are unavailable.

Objectives: The study aimed to determine the validity of a smartphone hearing screening technology (hearScreen™) compared with conventional screening audiometry in terms of (1) sensitivity and specificity, (2) referral rate, and (3) test time. Design: One thousand and seventy school-age children in grades 1 to 3 (8 ± 1.1 average years) were recruited from five public schools. Children were screened twice, once using conventional audiometry and once with the smartphone hearing screening. Screening was conducted in a counterbalanced sequence, alternating initial screen between conventional or smartphone hearing screening. Results: No statistically significant difference in performance between techniques was noted, with smartphone screening demonstrating equivalent sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (98.5%) to conventional screening audiometry. While referral rates were lower with the smartphone screening (3.2 vs. 4.6%), it was not significantly different (p > 0.05). Smartphone screening (hearScreen™) was 12.3% faster than conventional screening. Conclusion: Smartphone hearing screening using the hearScreen™ application is accurate and time efficient.