Remote microphone systems for preschool-age children who are hard of hearing: access and utilization.

The sample came from an economically advantaged cohort compared with the U.S. population, and most children received early intervention services, so access and use may be higher than in lower-income settings or areas with less audiological care. Children with significant cognitive, visual, or motor impairments were excluded, so the findings may not apply to children with multiple disabilities. The remote microphone questionnaire was added two years into data collection, and only 45 parents completed the home questionnaire by age 4 or younger. Benefit and problem reports came from 38 and 32 parents respectively, and funding reports came from 49 parents, so these survey results have reduced response rates. Parents estimated hours per use in situations that did not necessarily occur daily, so average hours per use should be interpreted with caution. Data were collected between 2009 and 2013, and the remote microphone technology may now be outdated. The study did not examine whether remote microphone use led to better language outcomes. The study did not document whether preschools were half-day or full-day, so school hours per use cannot be compared across programs. The study did not ask parents about analog FM versus digital modulation transmission, so it cannot describe the transmission type in use.

No conflicts-of-interest declaration appears in the supplied text. The publication types list NIH extramural research support.

Do not conclude that remote microphones improve language or hearing outcomes because 95% of the 38 parents answering reported benefit. This paper measured access, use, and parent perceptions, and it did not examine whether remote microphone use led to better language outcomes.