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.

The rising prevalence of hearing loss is a global health concern. Professional hearing services are largely absent within low- and middle-income countries where appropriate skills are lacking. Task...

To compare outcomes of a community-based hearing screening programme using smartphone screening audiometry operated by specialist (School Health Nurses – SHNs) and non-specialist health workers (Co...

Introduction: Mobile health (m-health) has the potential to improve access and uptake of health services globally. Noncommunicable diseases such as hearing loss have seen increasing use of m-health approaches to improve access, scalability, penetration, quality, and convenience of health services. This scoping review describes published research in m-health supported hearing health care services across the continuum of care. Methods: A search on Scopus, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science for articles published up to July 2, 2021 was conducted. Articles in which m-health was used across a continuum of care where the primary focus was hearing health care were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: One hundred forty-six articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in data extraction. High-income countries contributed 56% of articles, upper-middle countries 32%, lower-middle countries 8%, and low-income countries 4%. Articles identified included promotion (2%), screening (39%), diagnosis (35%), treatment (10%), and support (14%) for hearing loss. m-Health applications in high-income countries were more represented in diagnosis (62% vs. 38%), treatment (67% vs. 33%), and support (82% vs. 18%) compared with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) except for screening (64% vs. 36%). Few studies focussed on hearing health promotion across all income brackets. Conclusions: m-Health supported hearing health care services are available across a continuum of care and various world regions, although more prevalent in high-income countries. Although great potential is demonstrated, implementation evaluations are important to further validate its widespread use and potential to make services for hearing loss more accessible in LMICs.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the uptake and scope of telehealth. This study determined the accuracy and reliability of a smartphone digits-in-noise (DIN) test when conducted by adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a simulated home environment compared with a clinic setup. Perceptions of remote monitoring using speech-in-noise (SIN) testing were also explored. Method: Thirty-three adult CI recipients between 18 and 78 years of age ( M = 46.7, SD = ±20.4) conducted the DIN test in a simulated home environment and a clinic setup. Test–retest reliability across the two environments and comparisons between test settings were evaluated. A survey explored the perceptions of adult CI recipients regarding remote monitoring and use of the DIN self-test. Results: Mean-aided speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in the clinic and simulated home environment test conditions and clinic and simulated home environment retest conditions did not differ significantly. Mean test–retest SRTs in the clinic and simulated home environment were significantly different ( p < .05). High intraclass correlation coefficient and low standard error of measurement scores reflected good and excellent reliability between test–retest measures and between clinic and simulated home environment measures. Most participants were positive about the possibility of using the DIN test at home to self-assess speech perception, although some test adjustments such as including training items and a less adverse starting signal-to-noise ratio may be required. Conclusion: Adult CI recipients can use the smartphone DIN test to self-assess aided SIN performance in a home environment with accuracy and reliability relatively similar to clinic testing. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20044418