Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:39:01.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AUTOMATED SCREENING AUDIOMETRY IN THE DIGITAL AGE: EXPLORING UHEAR™ AND ITS USE IN A RESOURCE-STRICKEN DEVELOPING COUNTRY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2013

Katijah Khoza-Shangase  and
Lisa Kassner
Katijah Khoza-Shangase
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand
Lisa Kassner
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The current study aimed to determine the accuracy of UHear™, a downloadable audiometer on to an iPod Touch©, when compared with conventional audiometry.

Methods: Participants were enrolled primary school scholars. A total number of eighty-six participants (172 ears) were included. Of these eighty-six participants, forty-four were female and forty-two were male; with the age ranging from 8 years to 10 years (mean age, 9.0 years). Each participant underwent two audiological screening evaluations; one by means of conventional audiometry and the other by means of UHear™. Otoscopy and tympanometry was performed on each participant to determine status of their outer and middle ear before each participant undergoing pure tone air conduction screening by means of conventional audiometer and UHear™. The lowest audible hearing thresholds from each participant were obtained at conventional frequencies.

Results: Using the Paired t-test, it was determined that there was a significant statistical difference between hearing screening thresholds obtained from conventional audiometry and UHear™. The screening thresholds obtained from UHear™ were significantly elevated (worse) in comparison to conventional audiometry. The difference in thresholds may be attributed to differences in transducers used, ambient noise levels and lack of calibration of UHear™.

Conclusion: The UHear™ is not as accurate as conventional audiometry in determining hearing thresholds during screening of school-aged children. Caution needs to be exercised when using such measures and research evidence needs to be established before they can be endorsed and used with the general public.

Keywords

Conventional audiometryUHear™AccuracyScreeningDeveloping countryResourcesiPod Touch©
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 42 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.World Health Organization. Deafness and hearing impairment 2006. [cited 2010 March]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factssheet/fs300/en/print.html.Google Scholar
2.Olusanya, BO, Newton, VE. Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priorities for developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369:1314–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Yoshinago-Itano, C, Seday, AL, Coulter, DK, Mehl, AL. Language of early- and late-identified children with a hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1161–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Swanepoel, D, Clark, JL, Koekemoer, D, et al.Telehealth in audiology: the need and potential to teach undeserved communities. Int J Audiol. 2010;49:195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Clemens, CJ, Davis, SA, Bailey, AR. The false-positive in universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2000;106:e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bamford, J, Fortnum, H, Bristow, K, et al.Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Swanepoel, D. Audiology in South Africa. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:262–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Statistics South Africa. Mid-year population statistics 2009. [cited 2010 June]. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/PO302/PO3022009.pdf.Google Scholar
9.Khoza, K, Ramma, L, Mophosho, M, Moroka, D. Digit speech reception threshold testing in Tswana/English speakers. S Afr J Commun Dis. 2008;55:20–6.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Swanepoel, D, Storbeck, C, Friedland, P. Early hearing detection and intervention in South Africa. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73:783–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Wootton, R. Recent advances: telemedicine. BMJ. 2001;60:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Lancaster, P, Krumm, M, Ribera, J, Klich, R. Remote searing Screenings via telehealth in a rural elementary school. Am J Audiol. 2008;17:114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Margolis, RH, Morgan, DE. Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. Am J Audiol. 2008;17:109–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Ho, ATP, Hildreth, AJ, Lindsey, L. Computer-assisted audiometry versus manual audiometry. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:876–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Audiology Online. Unitron turns up the volume on UHear availability 2010. [cited 2010 May]. Available from: http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?wc=1&news_id=3787.Google Scholar
16.Apple®. Apple reports first quarter results 2010. [cited 2010 June]. Available from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25results.html.Google Scholar
17.Delahuntry, J. Apple sold 30 million iPhones. Afterdawn 2009. [cited 2010 June]. Available from: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2009/09/09/apple_sold_30_million_iphones_served_1_8_billion_apps_itunes_sold_85_billion_songs.Google Scholar
18.Schiavetti, N, Metz, DE. Evaluating Research in Communicative Disorders. 5th ed.New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc; 2006.Google Scholar
19.Martin, NM, Clark, JG. Introduction to Audiology. 7th ed.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2000.Google Scholar
20.Margolis, RH, Hunter, LL. Tympanometry: basic principles and clinical applications. In: Musiek, FE, Rintlemann, WF, eds. Contemporary Perspectives in Hearing Assessment. Needham Heights: MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1999:89–130.Google Scholar
21.Harrell, RW. Puretone evaluation. In: Katz, J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 5th ed.Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:71–87.Google Scholar
22.Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects 2002. Geneva: CIOMS. [cited 2010 March]. Available from: http://www.fhi.org/training/fr/retc/pdf_files/cioms.pdf.Google Scholar
23.Medical Research Council of South Africa. Guidelines on ethics for medical research: General principles 2003. [cited 2010 March]. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.za/ethics/ethicsbook/pdf.Google Scholar
24.Bess, FH. Humes, LE. Audiology: The Fundamentals. (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.Google Scholar
25.Wong, T, Yu, T, Chen, W, et al.Agreement between hearing thresholds measured in Non-soundproof work environments and a soundproof booth. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:667–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Khoza-Shangase Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Khoza-Shangase Supplementary Material(File)
File 27.9 KB