Adherence to Remote Microphone System use at school in children and adolescents with hearing loss.
Giovana Targino Esturaro, Bruna Capalbo Youssef, Luisa Barzaghi Ficker and 3 others
PMID 35043858WHAT IT FOUND
Of 120 students with hearing loss using a hearing aid or cochlear implant plus a remote microphone system, 54% used the system at school.
Twenty-two percent did not use it because of problems beyond their control, and elementary students showed the highest use.
Key findings
01Of the 120 students using a hearing aid or cochlear implant plus a remote microphone system, 54% used the remote microphone at school, 22% did not use it involuntarily, and 24% did not use it voluntarily.
02Use varied by educational level: 62% of elementary students used the RMS, compared with 55% of high school students and 41% of middle school students, although only 11 high school students were included.
03Students who voluntarily did not use the device tended to have higher SII values, and the difference reached significance (p < 0.05); they also had the lowest mean and median daily hearing aid use.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was descriptive and exploratory. It looked at who used the remote microphone system and what factors were related to use, not whether the system improved speech, language, or school learning. Students were followed only at one specialized rehabilitation center in São Paulo in 2017, so the results may not apply to other regions, services, or school systems. The high school group contained only 11 students. This small number makes comparisons with elementary and middle school difficult. School staff response was very low: only 6 of 120 SIFTER questionnaires were returned, and the team could not analyze those answers. The paper reports device use and characteristics, but it does not show that any single factor caused non-use, and it cannot separate the effects of family support, teacher support, device function, and student motivation. The school visits were not a random sample of all schools. They were scheduled by family requests or the institution's protocol, so the visited schools may have been more willing to cooperate.
Declared interests
Financial support came from the Municipal Fund for the rights of Children and Adolescents (Funcad). Derdic is named as the institution, and the paper lists a project agreement for expanding school inclusion of hearing-impaired children and adolescents who use the frequency modulated system.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 54% use rate as proof that the remote microphone system improves classroom listening or learning. This study counted use and related characteristics, not whether the system changed listening or learning. Many students did not use the device because it was lost, stolen, broken, incompatible, or refused by a teacher.