Outcomes of Aural Rehabilitation Provided in Person or by Telehealth Among Deaf/Hard of Hearing Young Children with Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Telemedicine and e-Health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1089/tmj.2023.0634
Jim Grigsby, Anu Sharma, Arlene Stredler-Brown, Jamie Cavanaugh, Stacey Elder, Gary S Kahn, Sung-Joon Min, Robert Schlenker, Keegan Walker, Susanne Withrow, Fred Hull
{"title":"Outcomes of Aural Rehabilitation Provided in Person or by Telehealth Among Deaf/Hard of Hearing Young Children with Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids.","authors":"Jim Grigsby, Anu Sharma, Arlene Stredler-Brown, Jamie Cavanaugh, Stacey Elder, Gary S Kahn, Sung-Joon Min, Robert Schlenker, Keegan Walker, Susanne Withrow, Fred Hull","doi":"10.1089/tmj.2023.0634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cochlear implants and hearing aids may facilitate the development of listening and spoken language (LSL) in deaf/hard of hearing young children, but they require aural rehabilitation therapy-often unavailable outside urban areas-for optimal outcomes. This trial assessed the relative effectiveness of LSL therapy delivered either in person or by interactive video. The hypothesis was that telehealth service delivery would be noninferior to in-person therapy. <b>Methods:</b> Most parents refused randomization of their children to telehealth or in-person conditions; therefore, randomization was impossible. In consultation with the funder (NIDCD), the study design was modified. Parents were allowed to select their preferred study condition, and the study team was blinded to group membership. Forty-two families were in the in-person group and 35 in telehealth (40 and 30, respectively, after attrition). Primary endpoints were total score, auditory comprehension, and expressive communication on the Preschool Language Scale, 5th edition. There were several secondary speech, hearing, and language outcome measures. Assessments occurred at baseline and at follow-up after 6 months of LSL therapy. <b>Results:</b> Propensity scores were used to create two matched groups. At baseline, groups did not differ on PLS-5 scores. Change from baseline to F/U on age-equivalents for all three scores was nearly identical for both groups, although the telehealth group was younger, on average, than the in-person group. <b>Discussion:</b> Telehealth was noninferior to in-person services for all primary endpoints. For secondary outcomes, neither group demonstrated a significant advantage. Magnitudes of estimated group differences were small, suggesting nonsignificant differences not predominantly because of sample size. The telehealth group showed greater improvement on 15/24 of secondary language outcome measures. The findings provide evidence that telehealth is equivalent to in-person care for providing LSL therapy to young children with cochlear implants and hearing aids.</p>","PeriodicalId":54434,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine and e-Health","volume":" ","pages":"2608-2619"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine and e-Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2023.0634","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cochlear implants and hearing aids may facilitate the development of listening and spoken language (LSL) in deaf/hard of hearing young children, but they require aural rehabilitation therapy-often unavailable outside urban areas-for optimal outcomes. This trial assessed the relative effectiveness of LSL therapy delivered either in person or by interactive video. The hypothesis was that telehealth service delivery would be noninferior to in-person therapy. Methods: Most parents refused randomization of their children to telehealth or in-person conditions; therefore, randomization was impossible. In consultation with the funder (NIDCD), the study design was modified. Parents were allowed to select their preferred study condition, and the study team was blinded to group membership. Forty-two families were in the in-person group and 35 in telehealth (40 and 30, respectively, after attrition). Primary endpoints were total score, auditory comprehension, and expressive communication on the Preschool Language Scale, 5th edition. There were several secondary speech, hearing, and language outcome measures. Assessments occurred at baseline and at follow-up after 6 months of LSL therapy. Results: Propensity scores were used to create two matched groups. At baseline, groups did not differ on PLS-5 scores. Change from baseline to F/U on age-equivalents for all three scores was nearly identical for both groups, although the telehealth group was younger, on average, than the in-person group. Discussion: Telehealth was noninferior to in-person services for all primary endpoints. For secondary outcomes, neither group demonstrated a significant advantage. Magnitudes of estimated group differences were small, suggesting nonsignificant differences not predominantly because of sample size. The telehealth group showed greater improvement on 15/24 of secondary language outcome measures. The findings provide evidence that telehealth is equivalent to in-person care for providing LSL therapy to young children with cochlear implants and hearing aids.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
佩戴人工耳蜗或助听器的聋儿/重听儿童亲自或通过远程保健进行听力康复的效果。
背景:人工耳蜗和助听器可以促进聋儿/听力障碍儿童听力和口语(LSL)的发展,但为了达到最佳效果,他们需要接受听力康复治疗--通常在城市以外的地区无法获得这种治疗。这项试验评估了亲自或通过交互式视频提供的 LSL 治疗的相对效果。假设是远程医疗服务的效果不逊于面对面治疗。试验方法大多数家长拒绝将他们的孩子随机分配到远程医疗或面对面治疗中,因此无法进行随机分配。经与资助方(NIDCD)协商,对研究设计进行了修改。家长可以选择自己喜欢的研究条件,研究小组对组员身份进行盲测。有 42 个家庭参加了现场组,35 个家庭参加了远程保健组(自然减员后分别为 40 和 30)。主要终点是学前语言量表(第 5 版)的总分、听觉理解能力和表达沟通能力。还有一些次要的言语、听力和语言结果测量。评估在基线和 LSL 治疗 6 个月后的随访中进行。结果使用倾向分数创建了两个匹配组。基线时,各组在 PLS-5 分数上没有差异。虽然远程保健组的平均年龄小于面对面组,但两组在所有三项评分的年龄等值上从基线到中/后期的变化几乎相同。讨论:在所有主要终点上,远程保健都不优于面对面服务。在次要结果方面,两组均无明显优势。估计的组间差异幅度较小,这表明差异不显著并不主要是因为样本量的问题。在 15/24 项次要语言结果测量中,远程保健组的改善幅度更大。研究结果证明,在为植入人工耳蜗和佩戴助听器的幼儿提供 LSL 治疗方面,远程保健与面对面治疗效果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Telemedicine and e-Health
Telemedicine and e-Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
270
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Telemedicine and e-Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal for cutting-edge telemedicine applications for achieving optimal patient care and outcomes. It places special emphasis on the impact of telemedicine on the quality, cost effectiveness, and access to healthcare. Telemedicine applications play an increasingly important role in health care. They offer indispensable tools for home healthcare, remote patient monitoring, and disease management, not only for rural health and battlefield care, but also for nursing home, assisted living facilities, and maritime and aviation settings. Telemedicine and e-Health offers timely coverage of the advances in technology that offer practitioners, medical centers, and hospitals new and innovative options for managing patient care, electronic records, and medical billing.
期刊最新文献
Quality of Life Among Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Telemedicine Care in Vietnam. The Association Between Telehealth Use During Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder and Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Acceptability of Forensic Sexual Assault Telehealth Consultation. Taking a Step Back or a Step Forward. Tele-Critical Care, Severity of Illness, and 30-Day Mortality Risk: A Retrospective, Cohort Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1