China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Teleaudiology Practices in Asia
Published in Stavros Hatzopoulos, Andrea Ciorba, Mark Krumm, Advances in Audiology and Hearing Science, 2020
Facilitators are critical in telepractice as they interface between the patient and the professional. Telepractice requires trained personnel at the location of the patient to assist in establishing connectivity, and in using clinical equipment and computers for remote testing and video-conferencing. Facilitators are also required to prepare patients for the testing process. Often in tele-audiology practice, remote assistance is provided by audiologists (Krumm et al., 2008, 2005), students of audiology (Ciccia et al., 2011) and ECG/EEG technicians (Dharmar et al., 2015). However, in our programs that are primarily designed for remote rural locations, using less skilled personnel was inevitable.
Global Initiatives for Hearing Health in the 21st Century
Published in Stavros Hatzopoulos, Andrea Ciorba, Mark Krumm, Advances in Audiology and Hearing Science, 2020
Bradley McPherson, Shelly Chadha
Although project data indicated that trained community health workers were as effective as audiologists in terms of hearing aid fitting outcomes (Martinez, 2010), the long-term sustainability of the program was questioned. The personnel involved in hearing health care had a range of competing work-related duties and hearing health care could not be prioritized (Martinez, 2010). This is often an issue in community-based health care (Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone, 1998). Work is ongoing to improve the viability of the service in Batangas Province, with tele-audiology intervention being one candidate intervention method.
Utilisation of tele-audiology practices in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of audiology clinic owners, managers and reception staff
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2023
Rebecca J. Bennett, India Kelsall-Foreman, Caitlin Barr, Elissa Campbell, Tony Coles, Mark Paton, Jessica Vitkovic
Hearing loss ranks in the top three most prevalent and burdensome global health conditions (Livingston et al. 2017), and impacts a person’s ability to hear, communicate and interact within the workplace, during social interactions and at home. Hearing loss assessment, intervention and support are delivered via audiological services. Tele-audiology is the delivery of audiological services from a distance and can be effectively used as an alternative or supplementary method for diagnostic and intervention services (Eikelboom et al. 2021a). However, uptake and routine use of tele-audiology service delivery has been slow within the audiology community (Eikelboom and Swanepoel 2016). Research suggests key barriers appear to be related to lack of funding for tele-audiology services (Muñoz et al. 2021; Psarros and McMahon 2015), reluctance to use tele-audiological services in particular populations, such as young children (Singh et al. 2014), availability of infrastructure (Eikelboom et al. 2021b; Saunders and Roughley 2021), perceived patient preferences for in-person services over tele-audiology services (Saunders and Roughley 2021) and perceived superior quality of services delivered in-person over tele-audiology (Singh et al. 2014).
Applied tele-audiology research in clinical practice during the past decade: a scoping review
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2021
Karen Muñoz, Naveen K. Nagaraj, Natalie Nichols
Access to hearing-health care continues to be a global challenge for large populations that live in remote locations, are not in good health to travel, or those with other factors that interfere with their ability to travel to receive in-person services. With availability of affordable broadband internet, computers, and mobile phones with built in communication accessories (such as a webcam and microphone), tele-audiology is not only feasible, but is becoming more common across the globe. The purpose of this literature review was to (1) to provide information about the characteristics, type of service delivery, participant information and outcomes related to tele-audiology in clinical popluations, and (2) to describe documented facilitators and barriers to tele-audiology delivery from the perspectives of practitioners and service recipients. This information can assist hearing care professionals in considering opportunities to expand tele-audiology services within their practice.
Challenges facing users of hearing aids during the COVID-19 pandemic
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2021
Safa Alqudah, Maha Zaitoun, Ola Alqudah, Sara Alqudah, Zainab Alqudah
Tele-audiology, a branch of telemedicine, can be used to deliver audiological care at a distance as a substitute for the temporarily suspended in-person services. Participants agreed that tele-audiology was more suitable to overcome restricted mobility in the current situation. Moreover, the patients may fit the hearing aid themselves and send the data to the hearing device providers’ database, or the audiologist may program the device remotely. Although several studies have reported that the effectiveness of tele-audiology is as good as the traditional in-person method of clinical communication (Campos and Ferrari 2012), the responses to the study questionnaire revealed that hearing providers and audiologists have not adapted to using information technology to enhance remote practice. Moreover, our study’s findings highlight the need for hearing technology with specifications that allow true remote fittings without the need of specialised equipment/connectors or software at the hearing-impaired patient’s location. These findings are supported by Eikelboom and Swanepoel’s study, which collected responses from 289 audiologists working in 28 countries to examine their attitudes towards tele-audiology services. Despite the optimistic perspective concerning telemedicine, few audiologists reported using these services in their professional practice and attributed the limited application of remote audiology to the paucity of resources and infrastructure (Eikelboom and Swanepoel 2016). Another study, which surveyed the opinions of hearing practitioners on tele-audiology rehabilitation, concluded that participants thought that tele-audiology had little or no influence on the quality of services and unenthusiastically alters professional–patient communication (Singh et al. 2014).