Services for children with hearing loss in urban and rural Australia

Abstract

ObjectiveTo report satisfaction with services for children with hearing loss in urban and rural Australia.DesignMixed‐method approach using surveys and semi‐structured interviews.SettingAustralian organisations that serve children with hearing loss.ParticipantsOne hundred parents of children with hearing loss and 91 professionals that serve children with hearing loss completed surveys. Seven parents and eight professionals were interviewed.Main outcome measuresComparison of satisfaction with services in rural and urban areas.ResultsTiming of initial hearing services was similar in rural and urban areas. Children with hearing loss in rural areas had less satisfaction with services than children in urban areas. Parents of children with hearing loss in rural areas had higher costs, mainly linked to travel, than parents in urban areas. Parents and professionals were concerned that advantaged parents received more services for their child than disadvantaged parents. Parents and professionals in urban and rural areas were satisfied with mainstream education, but less satisfied with education for children with hearing loss and additional disability. Professional satisfaction was lower in rural areas than urban areas.ConclusionsThis small‐scale study adds to research citing reduced services in rural areas. An exception is the newborn hearing screening program, with the limited data presented indicating the program is effectively overcoming the barrier of distance. However, children with hearing loss in rural areas have reduced access to ongoing services.

A five year descriptive analysis of potentially preventable hospitalisations for Ear, Nose, and Throat conditions in regional Victoria, Australia, from 2015 to 2020

“…The higher than expected postcodes identified for URTI, AT, and OM may be due to limited access to primary healthcare in these regions, as the majority of overlapping conditions were in regions outside of major towns. Several studies have reported on the increasing rates of hospitalisation for potentially preventable conditions with increasing distance from metropolitan regions, which may be due to limited primary health care services in outer regions [ 14 , 15 ]. However, some studies have found that the implementation of rural health clinics in regions lacking primary care services did not significantly reduce hospitalisations for potentially preventable conditions [ 16 ].…”

“Rural mothers’ feelings of isolation when caring for a child chronic health condition: A phenomenological study”

“…As a result, mothers reported being increasingly reliant on specialist services and health professionals based in metropolitan areas. Furthermore, this reliance causes its own issues as mothers experienced difficulty accessing support from the specialist services once back in their community as previously reported (Barr et al, 2020;Von Schuckmann et al, 2017). Specialist services need to encourage mothers to seek care locally and work collaboratively with rural clinicians in providing appropriate care and professional support.…”

A five year descriptive analysis of potentially preventable hospitalisations for Ear, Nose, and Throat conditions in regional Victoria, Australia, from 2015 to 2020

“…In that, increasing geographical remoteness increases PPH due to limited primary health care services in outer regions. [14,15] However some studies have found that the implementation of rural health clinics in regions lacking primary care services did not signi cantly reduce hospitalisations for potentially preventable conditions. [16] This may be due to higher rates of multimorbidity experienced by some population groups in remote regions (in particular Medicare bene ciaries and those who identify as Indigenous), and the need for greater infrastructure and sta ng to provide more comprehensive services for those with complex needs.…”