Few estimates are available of the need for assistive devices (ADs) in African settings. This study aimed to estimate population-level need for glasses and hearing aids in The Gambia based on (1) clinical impairment assessment, and (2) self-reported AD awareness, and explore the relationship between the two methods. The Gambia 2019 National Eye Health Survey is a nationally representative population-based sample of 9188 adults aged 35+ years. Participants underwent standardised clinical vision assessments including the need for glasses (distance and near). Approximately 25% of the sample underwent clinical assessment of hearing and hearing aid need. Data were also collected on self-reported awareness, need and access barriers to vision and hearing ADs. Overall, 5.6% of the study population needed distance glasses (95% CI 5.0–6.3), 45.9% (95% CI 44.2–47.5) needed near glasses and 25.5% (95% CI 22.2–29.2) needed hearing aids. Coverage for each AD was very low (<4%). The agreement between self-report and clinical impairment assessment for AD need was poor. In conclusion, there is high prevalence and very low coverage for distance glasses, near glasses and hearing aids in The Gambia. Self-report measures alone will not provide an accurate estimate of AD need.

Objective This study aimed to determine the implications of including tympanometry in the Rapid Assessment of Hearing Loss survey protocol. A comparative study design was employed, with findings from otoscopy compared with the results of tympanometry. Method A population-based survey of the prevalence and causes of hearing loss among adults aged over 35 years in The Gambia was conducted. Clinical assessments included air conduction audiometry, otoscopy and clinical history. Otoscopy outcome was recorded and for those with hearing loss, a probable cause was assigned. Following otoscopy, tympanometry was completed. Otoscopy outcome was not changed as a result of tympanometry. Clinician assigned cause was compared to the results of tympanometry. The proportion of causes potentially misclassified by excluding tympanometry was determined. Results Among people with hearing loss, including tympanometry led to a higher proportion diagnosed with middle-ear conditions. Conclusion The value of adding tympanometry to population-based survey protocols is a higher estimated proportion of hearing loss being attributed to middle-ear disease rather than sensorineural causes. This can inform service needs as more people will be classified as needing medical or surgical services, and a slightly lower number will need rehabilitative services, such as hearing assistive devices. It is highly recommended that tympanometry is included in the protocol.