Emma Laird, Cathy Sucher, Kento Nakano, Melanie Ferguson
{"title":"针对人工耳蜗和助听器用户的远程数字技术的患者和服务成果措施的系统性回顾","authors":"Emma Laird, Cathy Sucher, Kento Nakano, Melanie Ferguson","doi":"10.3389/fauot.2024.1403814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of telehealth for cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid service provision has the potential to provide efficient, effective, and equitable services to users. However, clinicians require evidence that remote technologies provide care that is equal, or superior to, standard delivery. There are many outcome measures used across audiology, however there is little consensus for a standardized approach to assessment. This systematic review aims to identify the outcome measures to assess remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users, as a first step in a larger project to develop a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.A systematic search of seven electronic databases was conducted using a search strategy defined by PICOTS for the research question. Eligible studies were in English and published in 2012 onwards. Search strategy, selection, and data collection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines.This systematic literature review of 49 articles revealed over 250 discrete outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped into core areas, outcome domains, and outcome sub-domains. Studies assessing remote technology for CI users assessed significantly more outcomes in the ear and labyrinth domain (43% vs. 10%) and studies assessing remote technology in hearing aid users assessed significantly more outcomes in the cognitive (28% vs. 5%) and emotional (35% vs. 10%) functioning domains. Outcome measures within the auditory functioning domain were also significantly different, with CI studies utilizing more speech perception measures (95% vs. 21%) and hearing aid studies utilizing significantly more self-reported outcome measures (73% vs. 19%).The inclusion of hearing aid studies was to ensure that all key outcome domains used within remote hearing rehabilitation were captured, as well as to compare differences in outcome domains between the two user groups. There were significant differences between studies of remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users. These results will inform the ongoing development of a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370171, identifier: CRD42022370171.","PeriodicalId":404946,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","volume":"92 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of patient and service outcome measures of remote digital technologies for cochlear implant and hearing aid users\",\"authors\":\"Emma Laird, Cathy Sucher, Kento Nakano, Melanie Ferguson\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fauot.2024.1403814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of telehealth for cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid service provision has the potential to provide efficient, effective, and equitable services to users. However, clinicians require evidence that remote technologies provide care that is equal, or superior to, standard delivery. There are many outcome measures used across audiology, however there is little consensus for a standardized approach to assessment. This systematic review aims to identify the outcome measures to assess remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users, as a first step in a larger project to develop a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.A systematic search of seven electronic databases was conducted using a search strategy defined by PICOTS for the research question. Eligible studies were in English and published in 2012 onwards. Search strategy, selection, and data collection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines.This systematic literature review of 49 articles revealed over 250 discrete outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped into core areas, outcome domains, and outcome sub-domains. Studies assessing remote technology for CI users assessed significantly more outcomes in the ear and labyrinth domain (43% vs. 10%) and studies assessing remote technology in hearing aid users assessed significantly more outcomes in the cognitive (28% vs. 5%) and emotional (35% vs. 10%) functioning domains. Outcome measures within the auditory functioning domain were also significantly different, with CI studies utilizing more speech perception measures (95% vs. 21%) and hearing aid studies utilizing significantly more self-reported outcome measures (73% vs. 19%).The inclusion of hearing aid studies was to ensure that all key outcome domains used within remote hearing rehabilitation were captured, as well as to compare differences in outcome domains between the two user groups. There were significant differences between studies of remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users. These results will inform the ongoing development of a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370171, identifier: CRD42022370171.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"volume\":\"92 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2024.1403814\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2024.1403814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
使用远程医疗提供人工耳蜗(CI)和助听器服务有可能为用户提供高效、有效和公平的服务。然而,临床医生需要证据证明远程技术提供的医疗服务与标准服务相同或更优。听力学领域使用的结果测量方法有很多,但对于标准化的评估方法却鲜有共识。本系统性综述旨在确定用于评估 CI 和助听器用户远程技术的结果测量方法,作为为 CI 用户开发远程技术核心结果集这一大型项目的第一步。符合条件的研究均为英文,且发表于 2012 年以后。搜索策略、选择和数据收集均遵循 PRISMA 2020 指南。该系统性文献综述包括 49 篇文章,揭示了 250 多个离散结果。结果测量分为核心领域、结果领域和结果子领域。针对 CI 用户的远程技术评估研究在耳部和迷宫领域评估的结果明显较多(43% 对 10%),而针对助听器用户的远程技术评估研究在认知(28% 对 5%)和情感(35% 对 10%)功能领域评估的结果明显较多。听觉功能领域的结果测量也有显著差异,CI 研究采用了更多的言语感知测量方法(95% 对 21%),而助听器研究则采用了更多的自我报告结果测量方法(73% 对 19%)。针对 CI 用户和助听器用户的远程技术研究之间存在明显差异。这些结果将为正在进行的针对 CI 用户的远程技术核心结果集的开发工作提供信息。https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370171,标识符:CRD42022370171。
Systematic review of patient and service outcome measures of remote digital technologies for cochlear implant and hearing aid users
The use of telehealth for cochlear implant (CI) and hearing aid service provision has the potential to provide efficient, effective, and equitable services to users. However, clinicians require evidence that remote technologies provide care that is equal, or superior to, standard delivery. There are many outcome measures used across audiology, however there is little consensus for a standardized approach to assessment. This systematic review aims to identify the outcome measures to assess remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users, as a first step in a larger project to develop a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.A systematic search of seven electronic databases was conducted using a search strategy defined by PICOTS for the research question. Eligible studies were in English and published in 2012 onwards. Search strategy, selection, and data collection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines.This systematic literature review of 49 articles revealed over 250 discrete outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped into core areas, outcome domains, and outcome sub-domains. Studies assessing remote technology for CI users assessed significantly more outcomes in the ear and labyrinth domain (43% vs. 10%) and studies assessing remote technology in hearing aid users assessed significantly more outcomes in the cognitive (28% vs. 5%) and emotional (35% vs. 10%) functioning domains. Outcome measures within the auditory functioning domain were also significantly different, with CI studies utilizing more speech perception measures (95% vs. 21%) and hearing aid studies utilizing significantly more self-reported outcome measures (73% vs. 19%).The inclusion of hearing aid studies was to ensure that all key outcome domains used within remote hearing rehabilitation were captured, as well as to compare differences in outcome domains between the two user groups. There were significant differences between studies of remote technologies for CI and hearing aid users. These results will inform the ongoing development of a core outcome set for remote technologies in CI users.https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370171, identifier: CRD42022370171.