
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39122403
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118
bmjopen-2024-089118
Protocol
Ear, Nose and Throat/Otolaryngology
1690
1506
Teletherapy to address language disparities in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: study protocol for an inclusive multicentre clinical trial
Naugle Kendyl 120kendyl.naugle@ucsf.edu

Stephans Jihyun 10jihyun.stephans@ucsf.edu

Lazar Ann 3ann.lazar@ucsf.edu

Kearns Joy M 14joy.kearns@ucsf.edu

Coulthurst Sarah 14sarah.coulthurst@ucsf.edu

Tebb Kathleen P 5kathleen.tebb@ucsf.edu

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0836-3730
Chan Dylan K 1dylan.chan@ucsf.edu

1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
2 School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
4 Department of Audiology, Benioff Children’s Hospital, Oakland, California, USA
5 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

Dr; dylan.chan@ucsf.edu
KN and JS contributed equally.

2024
8 8 2024
14 8 e08911822 5 2024
10 6 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Introduction

Children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) are at risk for speech and language delay. Language outcomes are worse in DHH children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, due in part to disparities in access to specialised speech-language therapy. Teletherapy may help improve access to this specialised care and close this language gap. Inclusion of diverse DHH children in prospective randomised clinical trials has been challenging but is necessary to address disparities and pursue hearing health equity. Stakeholder input regarding decisions on study design elements, including comparator groups, masking, assessments and compensation, is necessary to design inclusive studies. We have designed an inclusive, equitable comparativeness effectiveness trial to address disparities in paediatric hearing health. The specific aims of the study are to determine the effect of access to and utilisation of speech-language teletherapy in addressing language disparities in low-income children who are DHH.

Methods and analysis

After stakeholder input and pilot data collection, we designed a randomised clinical trial and concurrent longitudinal cohort trial to be conducted at four tertiary children’s hospitals in the USA. Participants will include 210 DHH children aged 0–27 months. 140 of these children will be from lower income households, who will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual care versus usual care plus access to supplemental speech-language teletherapy. 70 children from higher income households will be simultaneously recruited as a comparison cohort. Primary outcome measure will be the Preschool Language Scales Auditory Comprehension subscale standard score, with additional speech, language, hearing and quality of life validated measures as secondary outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites: the University of California, San Francisco (19-28356), Rady Children’s Hospital (804651) and Seattle Children’s Hospital (STUDY00003750). Parents of enrolled children will provide written informed consent for their child’s participation. Professional and parent stakeholder groups that have been involved throughout the study design will facilitate dissemination and implementation of study findings via publication and through national and regional organisations.

Trial registration number

NCT04928209.

audiology
paediatric otolaryngology
telemedicine
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006093 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute AD-2020C1-19403 All statements in this report, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Stakeholder-informed, patient-centred study design ensures that the study is relevant to populations of interest and will have dissemination potential.

Intentional inclusion of a diverse population of deaf and hard-of-hearing children, a significant gap in the literature on paediatric hearing healthcare outcomes.

Comprehensive evaluation of hearing, speech, language and quality of life outcomes.

Absence of masking imparts some risk of contamination.

Introduction

Disparities in paediatric hearing healthcare

One in 500 children are born deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH),1 putting them at a significant risk for permanent delays in speech and language. These delays can be mitigated by early identification of hearing levels and appropriate intervention before six months of age,27 which includes clinical management with hearing aids (HA) and cochlear implantation (CI)811 and early intervention (EI) services, including speech and language therapy.12 Numerous studies have demonstrated disparities in access to care, service utilisation and paediatric hearing health outcomes13: low socioeconomic status, underinsurance status, living in a rural area and coming from an underserved racial/ethnic group contribute to significant delays in identifying and intervening for hearing, including CI, and worsened auditory outcomes after CI.1417 The factors underlying these disparities among children who are DHH, particularly in speech and language, are complex but have been proposed to relate to differences in access to care.13 In particular, children who are DHH have very specific needs that benefit from specialised support by a provider with experience in aural habilitation18; however, equal access to specialised, linguistically matched EI services is poor. Inequitable access to specialised hearing healthcare, non-English home language, low-income status and public insurance are also risk factors for decreased utilisation of therapy services and delays in auditory and language function.1921

EI and teletherapy for children who are DHH

EI services to support language development for children who are DHH are a collaboration between the medical and educational systems.22 23 For children who are DHH, EI services are provided initially through an Individualised Family Service Plan,12 and then at age three transition to an Individualised Education Programme or 504 Plan, together with their clinical care team. Exact services vary considerably within and across states, giving rise to considerable inequity in services depending on locally available resources and the ability of families to access them.

Teletherapy (TT) has been proposed to reduce disparities related to geographical access to specialised care.24 TT sessions are virtual visits that use a parent coaching model to help parents develop their abilities to interact with their children in ways that support their child’s development. In small randomised studies with 30–50 children, TT improved language outcomes in DHH children compared with controls, who received usual, in-person, care.25 26 These studies demonstrate the efficacy of TT in a general population of children who are DHH; however, there is a critical need for research with populations who experience disparities.

Addressing disparities in paediatric hearing healthcare: specific aims and hypotheses

A child who is DHH is characterised both by demographic and clinical attributes, both of which contribute to hearing health outcomes (figure 1). Despite the broad and highly significant sociodemographic disparities in hearing outcomes for DHH children, previous large prospective studies on language outcomes in DHH children have focused primarily on white, English-speaking, well-educated, affluent families.9 27 28 There is a critical need for rigorous studies that are intentionally inclusive of more diverse families, explicitly account for these sociodemographic factors, and are designed to be equitable and ethical to the communities that are engaged. To address the specific evidence gap in TT as well as this broader gap in inclusive research engaging diverse populations of DHH children, we have designed a prospective randomised clinical trial to test the effectiveness of access to supplemental specialised speech-language therapy to address income-based language disparities in DHH children.

Figure 1 Theoretical model. A deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) child is characterised both by clinical and demographic attributes, both of which contribute directly to hearing health outcomes. Demographic factors also affect outcomes indirectly, mediated by therapy utilisation. This study seeks to evaluate whether directly intervening on access to care, by providing access to teletherapy (TT) versus usual care (UC), can improve hearing health outcomes through this utilisation pathway.

The overall aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of supplemental speech-language TT to address income disparities in language outcomes for DHH infants and toddlers. We designed two studies: (1) a randomised clinical trial study and (2) a concurrent prospective observational cohort study. The study design was informed by patient and provider stakeholders to optimise the ability to recruit, enrol and retain a diverse group of study participants. Our specific aims and hypotheses follow.

Specific aim 1: evaluate the effectiveness of access to supplemental TT for children who are DHH to address income-based disparities in language outcomes

Specific aim 1A

We will perform a randomised clinical trial (figure 2A) to compare language outcomes at 18 months between low-income children receiving usual care (UC) versus UC plus access to supplemental speech-language TT.

Figure 2 Study design. (A) In specific aim 1, deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) children are identified as lower or higher income. Lower income children are randomised to receive usual care (low-UC) or usual care plus access to supplemental speech-language teletherapy (low-TT). Higher income children receive UC and are followed as a prospective comparator cohort (high-UC). Hearing health outcomes are measured in all children identically. In specific aim 1A, a randomised clinical trial, we test differences in outcomes between low-UC and low-TT groups. In specific aim 1B, a prospective longitudinal observational cohort study, we test differences in the outcomes gap between higher income and lower income groups. (B) In specific aim 2, data obtained from this study will be used secondarily to perform a heterogeneity of treatment effects analysis on the interaction between teletherapy utilisation (TTu) and sociodemographic disparities (dichotomised as low (greater risk for worse outcomes) and high (lesser risk for worse outcomes)), as they relate to the same hearing health outcomes.

Specific aim 1B

In addition to comparing language outcomes between the two randomised groups of lower income children, we will perform a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study, in which we will concurrently accrue higher income patients receiving UC and measure the language gap between higher and lower income children. We will then evaluate whether TT can close the language outcomes gap between lower and higher income families. We hypothesise that supplemental access to specialised speech-language TT will improve language outcomes in lower income DHH children and close the language outcomes gap between higher and lower income DHH children.

Specific aim 2: evaluate the effectiveness of utilisation of supplemental TT for children who are DHH to address sociodemographic disparities in language outcomes

Whereas specific aim 1 measures the effectiveness of access to supplemental speech-language TT, actual utilisation of TT may vary considerably. Therefore, we will perform a secondary analysis of data accrued from aim 1 to evaluate the effectiveness of utilisation of TT in children who are DHH experiencing sociodemographic disparities (figure 2B). We hypothesise that utilisation of speech-language with be associated with improved language outcomes in DHH children experiencing each of these sociodemographic disparities.

Methods and analysis

Study population and setting

We have designed a randomised, unblinded, multicentre trial with a concurrent observational cohort study to address our specific aims. The randomised trial will enrol children from lower income households, defined as household income less than 266% of the federal poverty level, the eligibility threshold for Medi-Cal for children. These lower income children will be randomised to UC (low-UC), or to UC plus access to supplemental TT (low-TT). In parallel with this randomised trial for lower income children, we will simultaneously, prospectively recruit a comparator cohort of higher income DHH children receiving UC (high-UC). All children will be followed prospectively according to the assessment schedule described below.

Overall, the target enrolment will be 210 children, with 70 recruited for the high-UC group and 140 for the lower income group, of which 70 will be randomised each to low-TT and low-UC. Participants will be recruited from four tertiary academic paediatric centres. Study recruitment began on 1 July 2021; enrolment was completed on 30 June 2024; and data collection is anticipated to be completed on 31 December 2025.

Study interventions

All participants will receive UC, defined as the standard care that a child who is DHH at one of the enrolling centres would receive through the managing clinical site, Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act EI programme, and additional sources to which they have access, not including supplemental specialised speech-language TT. All forms of hearing-directed care received through UC will be quantified for all children.

Access to an 18-month course of TT will be provided as a supplement to UC for children randomised to the low-TT group. Technology needs assessments will be performed and a device and/or connectivity plan will be provided if applicable. All TT providers will be licensed speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and/or credentialed teachers of the deaf (TODs) with specialised training to work with children who are DHH and who are fluent in the child’s primary home language (English or Spanish). The exact details of the therapy course will be determined based on individual family needs according to the teletherapist’s standard clinical care. Utilisation of TT is not a requirement for remaining in the study. Additionally, if a study participant in the low-UC or high-UC group receives supplemental speech-language TT outside of the study after enrolment, they may remain in the study, as this TT is considered part of their UC.

Stakeholder engagement

Parents of DHH children and professional stakeholders were engaged in the study design and will continue to be engaged in the ongoing study and dissemination/implementation activities through biannual meetings of Professional and Parent Advisory Groups. Professional stakeholders include individuals across the USA, representing SLPs, TODs, audiologists, educators, researchers, policymakers, payors and social workers. We have also engaged with 12 English and Spanish-speaking sets of parents of DHH children in all aspects of this study. Stakeholders have informed the choice of primary and secondary outcome measures, refined definitions of comparators and interventions, helped identify clinical and sociodemographic covariates and confirmed the use of a non-blinded randomised study design.

Study procedures

Inclusion criteria

Children are eligible to participate in the study if they are 0–27 months old; from English or Spanish-speaking families; have intention for developing spoken language; have no medical conditions that would significantly preclude the development of spoken language; and have permanent hearing loss (HL) determined by auditory brainstem response (ABR) or behavioural audiometry as follows:

Bilateral sensorineural, mixed or permanent conductive HL with better ear pure tone average (PTA) of 0.5–4 kHz>20 dB.

Single-sided deafness (unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) with PTA>70 dB).

Unilateral complete aural atresia or partial aural atresia with air conduction PTA of >60 dB HL.

Bilateral auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD), as determined by ABR.

Children must also have adequate access to sound to participate in the study; children with bilateral PTA >20 dB must be fit with a clinically appropriate hearing device. T0 is defined as the date after enrolment when ‘access to sound’ is achieved; for children with access to sound already at time of enrolment, T0=date of enrolment.

Exclusion criteria

Children will be excluded from study participation if the family does not have intention to pursue any listening and spoken language for their child; the child has known moderate to severe global developmental delay, or syndrome typically associated with this level of delay (such as Down syndrome) at time of enrolment; the child is receiving supplemental speech-language TT through a clinical provider outside of this study at time of enrolment; or the child has poor prognosis for access to sound, defined as bilateral severe-to-profound SNHL plus either medical contraindication for CI or temporal bone abnormalities associated with poor CI outcomes, including cochlear nerve deficiency.

Study timeline

On informed consent obtained by study personnel (online supplemental data 1), group assignment and T0 will be performed based on the participant’s enrolment site, hearing level and hearing device status, age, home language, household income and household size, determined based on parent report and medical record review. Baseline evaluation will be performed within three months of T0, and nine and 18-month evaluations within a window±three months around the target dates.

Randomisation

Lower income children will be randomised 1:1 to low-UC or low-TT using an automated permuted block randomisation. The randomisation will be performed with stratification for hearing level and to study site as follows:

Better ear hearing level (better ear PTA (0.5–4 kHz)): (1) 0–20 dB HL; (2) 21–70 dB HL; (3) >70 dB HL or bilateral ANSD.

Site of enrolment (UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, San Francisco; UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, Oakland; Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego; and Seattle Children’s Hospital).

Data collection

The following forms will be used to collect baseline demographic and clinical data (online supplemental data 2):

Family demographics: gender, race, ethnicity, primary and other home languages, number of adults and children in household, birth order, siblings with HL, household annual income, highest education level of parents, country of birth, zip code.

Hearing history: screening, identification and intervention for HL, medical and developmental comorbidities.

Clinical data: hearing levels and aetiological testing results.

Study assessments will be performed at baseline, nine months and 18 months after T0, and consist of formal, validated, outcome measures (table 1) together with measurements of intervention utilisation. The primary study endpoint is Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5)29 Auditory Comprehension (AC) subscale standard score at 18 months. All other measures, including nine-month PLS-5 AC, and nine and 18-month PLS-5 Expressive Communication subscale and Total Language scores, are secondary endpoints. These outcome measures, which are all norm-referenced, validated measures available in English and Spanish, were selected to provide a comprehensive assessment of the auditory, speech and language development of DHH children. Assessments will only be administered to children within the validated chronological age range at time of the assessment. They will be conducted by an SLP and TOD, or completed by the participant’s caregiver, with assistance as necessary from a study coordinator, in the parents’ native home language, making use of a professional medical interpreter when necessary.

Table 1 Outcome measures

Assessment tool	Domain	Description	Ages	Administered by	Secondary outcomes	
Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5)29	Language	Standardised, norm-referenced measure of receptive and expressive language skills. Subscales:Auditory Comprehension (AC)

Expressive Communication (EC)

Total Language (TL)

	0–7:11	SLP	1–3: PLS-5 AC SS (9 months, changes from baseline to 9 and 18 months)4–7: PLS-5 EC SS*8–11: PLS-5 TL SS*	
Receptive Expressive Emergent Language Test–Fourth Edition (REEL-4)32	Language	Standardised, norm-referenced measure of verbal and non-verbal communication skills, including expressive and receptive language.	0–3:0	SLP	12–15: REEL-4 (receptive) SS*16–19: REEL-4 (expressive) SS*20–23: REEL-4 (language) SS*	
Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Third Edition (GFTA-3)33	Speech	Standardised, norm-referenced measure of the articulation of consonant sounds in Standard American English or Spanish.	2:0–21:11	SLP	24–27: GFTA-3 (sounds in words) SS*28–31: GFTA-3 (sounds in sentences) SS*	
MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Index (MBCDI)34	Vocabulary	Standardised, norm-referenced measure of young children’s language and communication skills.	0:8–3:9	Caregiver	38–41: MBCDI age equivalent*	
LittlEars Auditory Questionnaire (LEAQ)35	Auditory skills	Validated measure of auditory function. Critical versus normal limits.	0–2:0	Caregiver	32–33: LEAQ score at 9 and 18 months	
Parent Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH)36	Auditory skills	Validated measure of effectiveness of a child’s use of hearing in real-world environments.	0–5:0	Caregiver	34–37: PEACH total score*	
Hearing-Related Infant/Toddler and Parent Quality of Life (HIP-QL)37	Quality of life	Validated measure of dyad quality of life of a DHH child and their caregivers.	0–3:6	Caregiver	42–45: HEAR-QL total score*	
Scale of Parental Self-Efficacy (SPISE)38	Self-efficacy	Validated measure of caregiver comfort level in supporting their DHH child’s needs and communication development. A subset of questions is used for this study to reduce survey burden.	0–18:0	Caregiver	46–49: SPISE total score*	
Family Outcomes Survey (FOS)39	Quality of life	Validated measure of caregiver perceptions of both caregiver and EI provider’s ability to support their child’s needs. Part B subscale, ‘Communicating your child’s needs’.	0–18:0	Caregiver	50–53: FOS total score*	
All validated outcomes measures administered at each assessment timepoint (baseline, 9 months, and 18 months) are shown. SLP, speech-language pathologist. The primary outcomes is PLS-5) Auditory Comprehension (AC) standard score (SS) at the 18-month timepoint. All other secondary outcomes are indicated in the rightmost column and will be measured at the indicated timepoints. *Outcome will be measured at 9 mos, 18 mos, change from baseline to 9 mos, and change from baseline to 18 mos.

* Outcome will be measured at 9 months, 18 months, change from baseline to 9 months and change from baseline to 18 months.

DHHdeaf or hard of hearingEIearly interventionSLPspeech-language pathologist

The interventions that we are testing (UC and TT) are complex. Therefore, we have implemented the following measurements (online supplemental data 3) aimed at assessing the type, amount, quality and parent perception of interventions:

Interval history—family: access, utilisation and parent perception of therapy services.

Interval history—clinical: hearing interventions, including aided audiological and device utilisation measures.

TT enrolment (low-TT subjects only): teletherapist characteristics.

TT utilisation (low-TT subjects only): TT session characteristics.

Baseline and intervention data will be obtained through a combination of parent report and electronic medical record review. When there is a discrepancy, the electronic medical record will be used. We will document this and assess whether any patterns occur relating to sociodemographic factors.

Incentive structure

Families will receive a $150 VISA gift card for their participation in each of the three assessments, as well as a $50 gas card for assessments completed in person, for a maximum of $600.

Withdrawal

Family request to withdraw from the study after randomisation, failure to complete a baseline assessment within three months of enrolment, failure to undergo CI or HA fitting within six months of enrolment (for children with bilateral >20 dB PTA) or failure to complete the 18-month PLS-5 within six months will constitute non-completion of the study. For aim 1A, withdrawal occurs after randomisation. Randomisation occurs after T0 or baseline assessment.

Analyses

For aim 1A, we will test the hypothesis. Ho: θ1=0 vs HA: θ1≠0, where θ1 is the difference in PLS-AC between low-TT and low-UC at 18 months. For aim 1B, we will test Ho: θ2=0 vs HA: θ2≠0, where θ2 is the difference at 18 months in AC between low-income children receiving TT and higher income children receiving UC; and hypotheses III: Ho: θ3=0 vs HA: θ3≠0, where θ3 is the difference at 18 months in AC between low-income children receiving UC and higher income children receiving UC. Sample size was determined based on preliminary pilot data (table 2). For aim 1A, a total of 140 lower income children will be randomised 1:1 to low-TT or low-UC. For aim 1B, an additional 70 high-UC children will be recruited, for a total sample size of 210. These sample sizes were adjusted for drop-out of 20%. For specific aim 2, the association between AC, primary outcome and each of six sociodemographic disparities (table 3) at 18 months will be assessed. Heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) will be assessed using the standard HTE approach, an interaction between utilisation group and each disparity. A detailed analytical plan is provided in online supplemental data 4. We designed the study in accordance with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Methodology Standards.30

Table 2 Pilot data

	n	AC (SS)	P value	EC (SS)	P value	TL (SS)	P value	
All	38	84.4±21.9	N/A	83.2±18.8	N/A	81.6±20.2	N/A	
Insurance								
 Commercial	13	97.1±16.7	0.0072	92.1±16.1	0.0343	95.0±17.9	0.0026	
 Public	25	77.6±21.5		78.6±18.8		75.0±18.1		
Language								
 English	24	90.4±20.8	0.0298	86.9±18.1	0.1126	87.0±19.3	0.0263	
 LOTE	14	74.6±20.7		76.8±19.1		72.1±18.8		
ACI								
 ≤3	14	92.5±15.4	0.0005	86.9±15.0	0.0093	89.5±16.5	0.0016	
 >3	13	67.2±17.3		69.6±16.9		66.5±17.2		
Teletherapy pre-post						
 Intake	11	75.2±13.1	0.0112	79.6±17.5	0.022	75.2±18.6	0.0268	
 18 months	11	95.5±22.5		94.5±16.7		91.1±17.5		
Teletherapy								
 TT	16	91.8±21.3	0.0849	91.8±16.2	0.0147	88.7±17.2	0.0671	
 No TT	22	79.4±21.3		77.0±18.5		76.6±21.0		
Public insurance only					
 TT	12	87.0±21.3	0.0415	89.2±15.4	0.004	83.8±14.6	0.0204	
 No TT	13	69.6±19.0		68.8±16.4		67.5±17.8		
LOTE only								
 TT	6	81.5±20.6	0.302	88.5±12.7	0.0412	80.2±16.6	0.205	
 No TT	8	69.5±20.6		68.0±18.9		67.0±19.3		
ACI>3 only								
 TT	4	83.8±21.2	0.0137	84.0±16.5	0.0334	82.8±19.9	0.015	
 No TT	9	59.9±9.2		63.2±13.3		59.2±10.2		
Language outcomes (Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5) Auditory Comprehension (AC), Expressive Communication (EC) and Total Language (TL) subscale standard scores (SS)) for DHH children with the indicated sociodemographic characteristics are shown. P value for comparisons using unpaired, two-tailed, independent t -tests. LOTE, language other than English. ACI, Access Challenge Index. TT, teletherapy.

ACIAccess Challenge IndexDHHdeaf or hard-of-hearingLOTElanguage other than EnglishTTteletherapy

Table 3 Sociodemographic disparities

Factor	Dichotomisation	Lower risk	Higher risk	References	
Income	±266% FPL	Higher income	Lower income	16	
Insurance	Public versus commercial/mixed	Commercial/mixed	Public	17 19 20	
ACI	±Median	Lower ACI	Higher ACI	40	
Distance to hearing healthcare centre	±Median	Closer	Farther	13 15	
Home language	English versus LOTE	English	LOTE	19 20	
Highest level of parental education	±High school completion	More than high school completion	High school completion or less	41	
Sociodemographic factors to be considered as confounders for prospective cohort trial (Sspecific Aaim 1B) and HTE analysis (Sspecific Aaim 2).

ACIAccess Challenge IndexFPL, federal poverty levelHTEheterogeneous treatment effectLOTE, language other than English

Patient and public involvement

Parents of DHH children were directly involved in study design, including defining the primary outcome of the study, and will continue to be involved in study conduct and dissemination/implementation (see the ‘Stakeholder engagement’ section). As this is an open study, all study assessments performed on a study participant will be shared in their entirety with those patients’ parents and their clinical care teams. At the end of the study, the final study results will be shared with all study participants.

Ethics and dissemination

This study protocol, Version 1.6 (21 September 2023), was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at UCSF (19-28356), RCH (804651) and SCH (STUDY00003750), and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04928209). Protocol modifications are communicated to each institution and the trial funder. As this is a minimal risk trial with behavioural assessments and an intervention that is within standard clinical care, adverse event reporting and monitoring will not be performed, and a Data Safety and Monitoring Board will not be convened. A Data Safety and Monitoring Plan has been developed that addresses subject accrual and protocol compliance, data acquisition and completeness, and confidentiality and privacy (online supplemental data 5). Written informed consent will be obtained from a parent or legal guardian of each study participant. Assent will not be obtained, as all study participants will be 0–27 months of age at enrolment. Dissemination of study findings will be performed by publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at national conferences of the primary and secondary findings from this study. Implementation of these findings will be supported by members of the Professional and Parent Advisory Groups, which include leadership in local, regional and national organisations that are directly engaged in policy, training, and funding of speech-language TT. The full study protocol, participant-level deidentified dataset and statistical code will be made publicly available on request. We used the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist when writing our report.31

Discussion

Families of DHH children experience varied challenges, especially those who are from lower income backgrounds, speak a language other than English, live in rural areas or are publicly insured.13 Access to EI and speech-language therapy are the cornerstone of DHH children’s care, and speech and language therapy offered virtually has been shown to be similarly efficacious to in-person services.25 26 This comparative effectiveness study aims to assess whether providing access to TT for lower income families will improve outcomes and reduce linguistic, income, insurance and access disparities. Demonstration of the real-world effectiveness of supplemental speech-language TT may provide needed evidence to support improved and more widespread access to this resource for DHH children.

The current study was intentionally designed to be inclusive of more diverse participants than previous studies.9 27 28 Primary outcome, study assessments and schedule, and recruitment, enrolment and retention plans were developed on advisement from a large and multidisciplinary group of stakeholders, including parents of DHH children who were representative of the target study population. Specific study details intended to enhance inclusion include: (1) selection of language as the primary outcome measure; (2) targeted assessment battery, selected to be relevant for clinical care and acceptable in length; (3) absence of masking between groups as well as with the clinical care team, so that study assessments can be used explicitly for clinical care; (4) intent-to-treat design in which the intervention is access, rather than utilisation, of supplemental speech-language TT; and (5) compensation plan designed to incentivise participants and overlap between research coordinator and family navigation services to coordinate clinical and research activities. Overall, the significant overlap and alignment between study activities and direct clinical care was determined across all stakeholders to be essential to enable robust and equitable study participation.

Limitations of the study include risk of contamination due to absence of masking and sharing of research assessments with clinical care teams, which was necessary to support the inclusion of diverse participants. Utilisation of a randomised study design will help mitigate this limitation. Despite our efforts to retain study participants, the study population is at significant risk for loss to follow-up. We have accounted for a large (20%) drop-out rate to buffer against this threat to study power. Finally, the sample size calculation was based on retrospective pilot data comparing DHH children who used supplemental speech-language TT. In the pilot data, the effect of the TT intervention was significant; however, utilisation of TT is subject to significant bias even among the groups experiencing disparities—these families who successfully used TT may be biased towards those who would have done well anyway regardless of their access to TT. Therefore, the actual effect size in the proposed prospective randomised clinical trial for access to TT may be smaller than that seen in the pilot data for utilisation of TT.

Despite these limitations, this study addresses a major disparity in paediatric hearing health by testing the effectiveness of TT to improve access to specialised care and language outcomes. Beyond this specific aim, successful completion of a clinical trial that is inclusive of a diverse population of families of DHH children will provide a valuable template for similarly equitable research on paediatric hearing health.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118 online supplemental file 1

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118 online supplemental file 2

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118 online supplemental file 3

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118 online supplemental file 4

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118 online supplemental file 5

Review Process File
8 8 2024

Funding: This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (AD-2020C1-19403).

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089118).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; peer reviewed for ethical and funding approval prior to submission.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
==== Refs
References

1 Mehra S Eavey RD Keamy DG The epidemiology of hearing impairment in the United States: newborns, children, and adolescents Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009 140 461 72 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.12.022 19328331
2 Yoshinaga-Itano C Sedey AL Coulter DK et al Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss Pediatrics 1998 102 1161 71 10.1542/peds.102.5.1161 9794949
3 Moeller MP Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing Pediatrics 2000 106 e43 10.1542/peds.106.3.e43 10969127
4 Kennedy CR McCann DC Campbell MJ et al Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment N Engl J Med 2006 354 2131 41 10.1056/NEJMoa054915 16707750
5 Nelson HD Bougatsos C Nygren P et al Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Pediatrics 2008 122 e266 76 10.1542/peds.2007-1422 18595973
6 Meinzen-Derr J Wiley S Choo DI Impact of early intervention on expressive and receptive language development among young children with permanent hearing loss Am Ann Deaf 2011 155 580 91 10.1353/aad.2011.0010 21449255
7 Vohr B Jodoin-Krauzyk J Tucker R et al Expressive vocabulary of children with hearing loss in the first 2 years of life: impact of early intervention J Perinatol 2011 31 274 80 10.1038/jp.2010.110 20706190
8 Ching TYC Dillon H Day J et al Early language outcomes of children with cochlear implants: interim findings of the NAL study on longitudinal outcomes of children with hearing impairment Cochlear Implants Int 2009 10 Suppl 1 28 32 10.1179/cim.2009.10.Supplement-1.28 19067433
9 Niparko JK Tobey EA Thal DJ et al Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation JAMA 2010 303 1498 506 10.1001/jama.2010.451 20407059
10 Tomblin JB Oleson JJ Ambrose SE et al The influence of hearing aids on the speech and language development of children with hearing loss JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014 140 403 9 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.267 24700303
11 Walker EA Holte L McCreery RW et al The influence of hearing aid use on outcomes of children with mild hearing loss J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015 58 1611 25 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0043 26151927
12 California Dept of Education/California Deaf and Hard of Hearing Early Start Workgroup Best practices for early start for infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing 2005 Available https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/nhsp/Documents/BestPracEarlySt.pdf
13 Bush ML Kaufman MR McNulty BN Disparities in access to pediatric hearing health care Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017 25 359 64 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000388 28665808
14 Boss EF Niparko JK Gaskin DJ et al Socioeconomic disparities for hearing-impaired children in the United States Laryngoscope 2011 121 860 6 10.1002/lary.21460
15 Bush ML Osetinsky M Shinn JB et al Assessment of Appalachian region pediatric hearing healthcare disparities and delays Laryngoscope 2014 124 1713 7 10.1002/lary.24588 24402802
16 Stern RE Yueh B Lewis C et al Recent epidemiology of pediatric cochlear implantation in the United States: disparity among children of different ethnicity and socioeconomic status Laryngoscope 2005 115 125 31 10.1097/01.mlg.0000150698.61624.3c
17 Tolan M Serpas A McElroy K et al Delays in sound recognition and imitation in underinsured children receiving cochlear implantation JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017 143 60 4 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2730 27658178
18 Bowers LM Auditory-verbal therapy as an intervention approach for children who are deaf: A review of the evidence EBP Briefs 2016 11 1 8
19 Su BM Park JS Chan DK Impact of primary language and insurance on pediatric hearing health care in a multidisciplinary clinic Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017 157 722 30 10.1177/0194599817725695 28895463
20 Florentine MM Le Clec’h S Upton SM et al Disparities in speech and language delay among children with aural atresia Ear Hear 2022 43 1574 81 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001218 35319519
21 Vukkadala N Perez D Cabala S et al Linguistic and behavioral performance of bilingual children with hearing loss Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2018 112 34 8 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.06.020 30055736
22 Adams RC Tapia C Council on children with disabilities Early intervention, IDEA Part C services, and the medical home: collaboration for best practice and best outcomes Pediatrics 2013 132 e1073 88 10.1542/peds.2013-2305 24082001
23 Early Start Federal and state statutes and regulations Available http://www.dds.ca.gov/EarlyStart/Statutes_Regs.cfm
24 Marcin JP Shaikh U Steinhorn RH Addressing health disparities in rural communities using telehealth Pediatr Res 2016 79 169 76 10.1038/pr.2015.192 26466080
25 Blaiser KM Behl D Callow-Heusser C et al Measuring costs and outcomes of tele-intervention when serving families of children who are deaf/hard-of-hearing Int J Telerehabil 2013 5 3 10 10.5195/ijt.2013.6129
26 Behl DD Blaiser K Cook G et al A multisite study evaluating the benefits of early intervention via telepractice Young Child 2017 30 147 61 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000090
27 Ching TYC Dillon H Button L et al Age at intervention for permanent hearing loss and 5-year language outcomes Pediatrics 2017 140 e20164274 10.1542/peds.2016-4274 28864712
28 Tomblin JB Harrison M Ambrose SE et al Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss Ear Hear 2015 36 76S 91S 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000219 26731161
29 Zimmerman I Steiner V Pond R Preschool language scale 5th edn San Antonio, TX The Psychological Corporation 2011
30 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI Methodology Standards PCORI methodology standards (november 2015, updated april 2024) n.d. Available https://www.pcori.org/research/about-our-research/research-methodology/pcori-methodology-standards
31 Chan A-W Tetzlaff JM Gøtzsche PC et al SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials BMJ 2013 346 e7586 10.1136/bmj.e7586 23303884
32 Bzoch KR League R Brown VL Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test - (REEL-3). Pro-Ed 2002
33 GFTA-3 Technical Information Available https://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Products/GFTA-2/gfta2.pdf
34 Fenson L Dale PS et al The MacArthur communicative development inventories: user’s guide and technical manual Baltimore, MD Paul H. Brokes 1993
35 Coninx F Weichbold V Tsiakpini L et al Validation of the LittlEARS((R)) auditory questionnaire in children with normal hearing Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009 73 1761 8 10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.09.036
36 Ching TYC Hill M The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data J Am Acad Audiol 2007 18 220 35 10.3766/jaaa.18.3.4 17479615
37 Sola AM Vukkadala N Giridhar S et al Validation of a hearing-related quality-of-life questionnaire for parents and deaf or hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021 165 360 9 10.1177/0194599820976175 33317400
38 DesJardin JL Assessing parental perceptions of self-efficacy and involvement in families of young children with hearing loss Volta Rev 2003 103 391 409
39 The Early Childhood Outcomes Center Frequently asked questions about the family outcomes survey–revised (FOS-R), version 2. Menlo Park, CA 2014
40 Florentine MM Strohl MP Benvenuti CS et al Access challenge index: a novel disparity measure predictive of language outcomes in children who are deaf/hard of hearing Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022 167 170 7 10.1177/01945998211040017 34488501
41 Gutierrez KL Koyamatsu R Lahiff M et al Disparities in newborn hearing screening outcomes in the United States, from 2007 to 2017 Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2024 170 535 43 10.1002/ohn.517 37712299
