A randomized cross-over study evaluates bone conduction devices in children with hearing impairment, highlighting challenges and implications for widespread adoption.
Background Literature suggests a high hearing burden for children in low-resource settings, with a reported prevalence of almost 25% in Malawi. Future studies need to verify these figures in epidemiological surveys and trial new methods of treating hearing loss where technological and surgical provision is insufficient. Methods A cross-sectional study of hearing in all children aged 5–16years attending four participating schools. Identified children then received treatment in two(active and placebo) 8-week periods, of a novel bone conduction headset to treat their hearing loss. The primary outcome was the between-treatment difference in the Digits-in-Noise(DIN) score, versus baseline, during each period. Key secondary outcomes explored quality-of-life. Results 1600 children were invited to participate. 817 were assessed, of these 254(31%) children had a self-reported hearing impairment. Of those with hearing impairment, only seven children reported prior hearing-aid use. Only 20 children completed 8 weeks in both arms. The primary outcome did not significantly increase (−7.5 (IQR 6.25)) versus the children’s median baseline score (−11 (3.5) P = 0.78). Only one secondary outcome (the self-acceptance score) improved significantly with active device. Discussion This trial of a frugal hearing device in a school setting was achievable with exploratory analyses suggesting safety and acceptability but no significant difference in speech scores. Scalable and affordable ways to address school-age hearing impairment are urgently needed in settings with a low resource for hearing health. This could potentially be implemented safely outside typical health system structures using the methods described. Registered Pan African Clinical Trial Registry(PACTR202408822942051)(2024)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hampton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: