Background: Hearing and vision (sensory) impairments are highly prevalent in people with dementia (PwD) and exacerbate the impact of living with dementia. Assessment of sensory or cognitive function may be difficult if people have concurrent dual or triple impairments. Most standard cognitive assessment tests are heavily dependent on having intact hearing and vision, and impairments in these domains may render the assessments unreliable or even invalid. Likewise, dementia may impede on the accurate reporting of symptoms that is required for most hearing and vision assessments. Thus, there is an urgent need for hearing, vision and cognitive assessment strategies to be adapted to ensure that appropriate management and support can be provided. Objective: To explore the perspectives of PwD and the care partners regarding the need for accurate hearing, vision and cognitive assessments. Methods: We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews regarding the clinical assessment for cognitive, hearing and visual impairment. Participants (n = 18) were older adults with mild to moderate dementia and a sensory impairment as well as their care partners (e.g. a family member) (n = 15) at three European sites. The qualitative material was analysed according to Mayring’s summative content analysis approach. Results: Participants reported that hearing, vision and cognitive assessments were not appropriate to the complex needs of PwD and sensory comorbidity and that challenges in communication with professionals and conveying unmet needs and concerns by PwD were common in all three types of clinical assessments. They felt that information about and guidance regarding support for the condition was not adequate in the assessments and that information sharing among the professionals regarding the concurrent problems was limited. Professionals were reported as being concerned only with problems related to their own discipline and had limited regard for problems in other domains which might impact on their own assessments. Conclusions: The optimal assessment and support for PwD with multiple impairments, more comprehensive, yet easy to understand, information regarding these linked to conditions and corrective device use is needed. Communication among health care professionals relevant to hearing, vision and cognition needs to be improved.

Hearing and vision impairments are highly prevalent in people with dementia and may have a negative impact on quality of life and other dementia-related outcomes. Intervening to optimise sensory impairment and support sensory function may be a means of improving dementia-related outcomes. The SENSE-Cog trial will test whether a home-based multi-part sensory intervention is effective in improving quality of life and other key outcomes in people with dementia and hearing or vision problems (or both) and their companions. This is an European, multi-centre, observer-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Three hundred fifty four people with dementia and hearing or vision impairment (or both) and their companions will be randomly assigned to receive either “care as usual” or a multi-component sensory intervention including assessment and correction of hearing or vision impairments (or both), home-based (maximum 10 visits over 18 weeks), therapist-delivered sensory support (that is, adherence to devices; improving the sensory environment (that is, lighting), communication training, and sign-posting to other support agencies). Change from baseline to intervention end (18 weeks) and post-intervention (36 weeks) will be compared between the two arms in the following outcomes: quality of life (primary endpoint), sensory and cognitive functional ability, relationships, mental well-being, health resource utilisation and cost-effectiveness. This is one of two articles outlining the SENSE-Cog trial. Here, we describe the protocol for the effectiveness of the SENSE-Cog intervention. A parallel and complementary process evaluation will be described elsewhere. If the SENSE-Cog trial demonstrates that the sensory intervention improves outcomes in dementia, we will make a toolkit of training materials, resources and information available to health and social care providers to implement the intervention in routine practice. This will be a significant contribution to the therapeutic management of people with dementia and sensory impairment. ISRCTN (Trial ID: ISRCTN17056211 ) on 19 February 2018.

Background: Speech-sound disorders (SSD) have been linked to auditory processing difficulties, and auditory processing disorders (APD) have been related to phonological awareness and literacy development. To this date, there has not been a systematic literature review investigating the results of psychophysiology and language assessments related to SSD and APD in children. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline EBSCO, and Scopus to identify studies with children diagnosed/suspected of having APDs and SSDs. The quality of methodology in the selected articles was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results: Seven out of 378 relevant studies met the selection criteria. The findings were summarized for children with SSD and APD based on (a) metalinguistic and literacy skills, (b) cognitive abilities, and (c) temporal processing abilities. Three articles indicated that children with APD and SSD exhibit lower temporal task accuracy and reaction time. In two studies, children with SSD exhibited lower scores in discrimination, sequencing, and recall of brief stimuli in rapid succession. Conclusions: This review revealed associations between SSD severity and APD that may underline low performance in metalinguistic skills. Diagnostic assessments have been proposed based on the review to adequately identify children with SSD and APD and provide useful information for more suitable intervention.

PurposeTo screen hearing and evaluate outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. MethodThree thousand and twenty-five adults responded to an invitation to be screened by questionnaire, otoscopy, and pure-tone audiometry. Pure-tone average (PTA) >35 dB HL in the worse ear, unilateral hearing loss, or otoscopic findings were the criteria for referral for services. A questionnaire related to compliance with referral recommendations was completed by telephone interview for 160 randomly selected participants after 1–2 years from referral. ResultsThe referral rate for audiologic/hearing aid evaluation was 46%, and referral for cerumen removal/medical evaluation was 17%. Of the people referred for audiologic/hearing aid evaluation, 18% tried a hearing aid; 2 years later, 11% were using a hearing aid. Screening recommendations affected participants' decision to seek help. Study participants stated that the screening was helpful, it should be offered to everybody, and they would participate in future screenings. ConclusionAlthough adult hearing screening offered timely identification of hearing loss for adults seeking help, follow-up with hearing aid treatment was low.

Background: Identification of auditory processing disorders is achieved using questionnaires along with linguistic, non-linguistic, and auditory processing tests. Notably, the questionnaires “Children’s Auditory Performance Scale” (CHAPS) and “Auditory Processing Domain Questionnaire” (APDQ) are widely recognized and used. The current study investigated the psychometric properties of the CHAPS and APDQ in Greek Cypriot children. Methods: The CHAPS and APDQ questionnaires were completed by parents of 40 Greek Cypriot children, 16 typically developing (TD) children, and 24 children with a history of Speech Sound Disorders (SSDs). Results: There were significant differences between the two groups on both questionnaires. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at α = 0.922 for the CHAPS total score and α = 0.926 for the APDQ total score. The Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analysis provided a cut-off point equal to −0.30 (AUC 0.849, p < 0.001) for CHAPS and a cut-off point equal to 90.00 (AUC 0.820, p < 0.001) for APDQ. Significant positive Spearman ρ correlations were observed between the CHAPS and APDQ (ρ = 0.639, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The CHAPS and APDQ can identify distinct auditory processing characteristics between in children with SSDs and TD children.

Background: Children diagnosed with Speech Sound Disorders (SSDs) encounter difficulties in speech perception, especially when listening in the presence of background noise. Recommended protocols for auditory processing evaluation include behavioral linguistic and speech processing tests, as well as objective electrophysiological measures. The present study compared the auditory processing profiles of children with SSD and typically developing (TD) children using a battery of behavioral language and auditory tests combined with auditory evoked responses. Methods: Forty (40) parents of 7–10 years old Greek Cypriot children completed parent questionnaires related to their children’s listening; their children completed an assessment comprising language, phonology, auditory processing, and auditory evoked responses. The experimental group included 24 children with a history of SSDs; the control group consisted of 16 TD children. Results: Three factors significantly differentiated SSD from TD children: Factor 1 (auditory processing screening), Factor 5 (phonological awareness), and Factor 13 (Auditory Brainstem Response—ABR wave V latency). Among these, Factor 1 consistently predicted SSD classification both independently and in combined models, indicating strong ecological and diagnostic relevance. This predictive power suggests real-world listening behaviors are central to SSD differentiation. The significant correlation between Factor 5 and Factor 13 may suggest an interaction between auditory processing at the brainstem level and higher-order phonological manipulation. Conclusions: This research underscores the diagnostic significance of integrating behavioral and physiological metrics through dimensional and predictive methodologies. Factor 1, which focuses on authentic listening environments, was identified as the strongest predictor. These results advocate for the inclusion of ecologically valid listening items in the screening for APD. Poor discrimination of speech in noise imposes discrepancies between incoming auditory information and retained phonological representations, which disrupts the implicit processing mechanisms that align auditory input with phonological representations stored in memory. Speech and language pathologists can incorporate pertinent auditory processing assessment findings to identify potential language-processing challenges and formulate more effective therapeutic intervention strategies.