Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by October 2022.
Article Highlight: Children in school-based hearing screening programs who received telehealth-based specialist referrals experienced follow-up care up to 17.6 times faster, compared with children who received standard primary care referrals, according to results from this study, which appear in the July 2022 edition of Lancet Global Health.
The study, which was conducted in 15 rural Alaskan communities between 2017 and 2020, is considered to be the first to demonstrate that telemedicine can reduce a key rural health disparity in access to care. The researchers also suggest that the benefits of telemedicine could translate to other preventive school-based services to improve specialty health care for children in rural areas.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
This Simple Test Can Help Kids Hear Better (Susan Emmett | TEDGlobal 2017)
NOTE: This talk was presented at an official TED conference. View the video and more on the TED website.
The video above is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. It is attributed to TED Talks. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers praised the researchers on this well-written final report of an important research project. There were few substantive comments.
- One reviewer noted that the researchers asserted their study had limited generalizability because of its unique Tribal healthcare context and asked the researchers to provide some details about how the unique context could affect generalizability. The researchers explained that this telemedicine-focused study would require the community having an existing telehealth infrastructure like the one the researchers utilized in the Tribal health system.
- The reviewer asked how the generalizability of the study could be improved in future studies. The researchers responded by suggesting that in non-Tribal areas the intervention could be moved into the school to address the need for a telehealth infrastructure and some of the other limitations of this study.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
^Philip Hofstetter, AuD, MA, was the original principal investigator on this project.
- Has Results