Table 2.
Experience and attitude towards teleaudiology
| Study ID | Experience using telemode | Current uses of teleaudiology | Perceptions/attitudes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASHA [13] | Audiologists (12%) more likely to use telepractice compared to speech language pathologists (9%) | Hearing aid/assistive technology (89%), counselling (83%), hearing disorders (79%), follow-up (68%), aural rehabilitation (50%), equipment check (47%), prevention (26%), auditory processing disorders (16%), screening (15%), treatment (14%), assessment (11%) | 97% considered it as an useful tool in their practice |
| Mode: telephone (93%), e-mail (74%), web-based information (40%) streaming video/chat room (13%); video teleconferencing (8%) | |||
| Schonfeld [14] | Previous experience: 7% | - National level (74%) | Main incentives to encourage the use teleaudiology: |
| Mode: phone (98%), e-mail (83%) letters (67%), videoconferencing (7%) | - International level (10%) | - Help those with minimal access to healthcare (71%) | |
| Type: Real-time approach (77%) store and forward method (10%) | - Intervention services & education/training (65-68%) | - Improve quality of life (68%) | |
| - Hearing aid/cochlear implant programming, adjustments, checks (48%) | Reducing cost of audiology services (45%) | ||
| - Telehealth protocols current practices (74%) >25% of clinical practice with telehealth (77%) | |||
| Eikelboom & Swanepoel [15] | Previous experience:15.6% | - More comfortable using email, computer as compared to tablet and PC based video conferencing | |
| Mode: video-conferencing (90%), smartphone (81.8%) | - Less familiar for telehealth applications in audiology | ||
| Singh, et al. [24] | Used for: | Willingness to use for: aural rehabilitation (54%), Counselling (56%) | - Increased overall quality of care in audiology (32%) |
| Patient communication: telephone (94.05%), e-mail (83.16%), videoconferencing (3.46%) | Disinclined to use for: HA programming (47%), audiological screening (48%) | - Access to audiological services: increase (41%), minimal effect (53%), decrease (6%) | |
| Colleague communication: telephone (95%), e-mail (87%), videoconferencing (10%) | Unwillingness to use for: complete 1st fit (60%), CI mapping | - Quality of interaction: increase (27%), minimal (47%), decrease (26%) | |
| - Decrease travel demands for patients | |||
| - Increase in public opinion about profession (37%) | |||
| - Earning potential of audiology clinics: increase (20%), minimal impact (71%), decrease (9%) | |||
| - Low willingness to use in very young, adolescents, older adults, and first time clients | |||
| Dharmar, et al. [25] | Not reported | - Patient history | Ratings on 7 point rating scale: |
| - Visualization of external structures | - Overall experience for consultation (5.9) | ||
| - Video-otoscopy | - Importance of teleaudiology (6.4) | ||
| - Immittance | - Quality of visual image (5.9) | ||
| - Distortion product otoacoustic emissions | - Quality of audio (6.7) | ||
| - Auditory brainstem response | |||
| - Auditory steady-state response |
ASHA: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, HA: hearing aid, CI: cochlear implant