The hearScreen smartphone application provides time-efficient identification of hearing loss with adequate sensitivity and specificity for accurate testing at primary health care settings.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of self-reported hearing loss alone and in combination with pure tone audiometry screening in primary health care clinics in South Africa. Design: Nonprobability purposive sampling was used at 2 primary health care clinics. A total of 1084 participants (mean age 41.2 years; SD 15.5 years; range 16-97 years, 74.0% female) were screened using self-report and audiometry screening. Those failing audiometric screening and a sample of those who passed audiometric screening were also assessed by diagnostic pure time audiometry, to confirm or negate the finding of a hearing loss. Results: Four hundred and thirty-six participants (40.2%) self-reported a hearing loss with no significant association with gender or race. One hundred and thirty-six participant (12.5%) self-reported hearing loss and failed audiometry screening (35 dB HL at 1, 2, and 4 kHz). Combining self-report with a second stage audiometry screening revealed a high test accuracy (81.0%) for hearing loss, being most accurate (86.1%) to identify high-frequency hearing loss. Conclusion: While self-report of hearing loss is an easy and time-efficient screening method to use at primary health care clinics, its accuracy may be limited when used in isolation and it may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect hearing loss. Combining a simple audiometry screening as a second-stage screen can significantly improve overall performance and efficiency of the screening protocol.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: 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 (Community Health Workers -CHWs) in school children. Design: This study used a two-group comparison of screening outcomes as conducted by SHNs and CHWs using smartphone screening for children in communities. Study sample:The study included 71 CHWs and 21 SHNs who conducted community-based hearing screening on 6805 children. One thousand one hundred and fifteen hearing screening tests were conducted by the CHWs and 5690 tests by the SHNs. Results: No significant difference in screening outcome was evident between CHWs and SHNs using a binomial logistic regression analysis considering age, test duration and noise levels as independent variables. Final screening result was significantly affected by age (p < 0.005), duration of test (p < 0.005) and noise levels exceeding at 1 kHz in at least one ear (p < 0.005). Test failure was associated with longer test duration (p < 0.005; B: 119.98; 95% CI: 112.65-127.30). CHWs had significantly (p < 0.005) longer test durations (68.70 s; 70 SD) in comparison to SHNs (55.85 s; 66.1 SD). Conclusion: Low-cost mobile technologies with automated testing facilitated from user-friendly interfaces allow minimally trained persons to provide community-based screening comparable to specialised personnel.