Socioeconomic Disparities in Pediatric Single‐Sided Deafness. (2nd June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lipschitz, Noga; Kohlberg, Gavriel D.; Scott, Michael; Smith, Matthew M.; Greinwald, John H.
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 163:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 829
• Page End: 834
• Publication Date: 2020-06-02
• Subjects: single‐sided deafness -- hearing loss -- socioeconomic -- insurance; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599820923634
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To explore socioeconomic disparities in pediatric single‐sided deafness (SSD) treatment. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral academic center. Methods: The charts of 190 pediatric patients with SSD were reviewed for demographic and clinical characteristics. Socioeconomic variables included race and insurance status. ZIP codes were used to obtain additional socioeconomic data from the American Community Survey, including mean and median income, percentage of families below the poverty level, and employment status. Socioeconomic status (SES) was classified by insurance status and income. Treatment outcomes were analyzed by socioeconomic variables. Results: There were 105 males and 85 females with a mean follow‐up of 55.2 months and a mean age at diagnosis of 4.4 years. Sixty‐three percent of children received treatment at last follow‐up. Thirty‐five percent of children had public insurance and 65% had private insurance. Treatment rates were similar in the private and public insurance groups (60.6% vs 66.7%, P =. 42), but device type was different between groups ( P =. 02). Consistent device use was associated with private insurance (47.5% vs 38.9%, P =. 003) and high SES (94.4% vs 80%, P =. 04) on univariate but not on multivariate analysis. Aided audiometry results were similar between SES groups. No association was found between sex, race, income level, poverty level, or employment status and treatment outcomes. Conclusion: Insurance type and SES were not associated with SSD treatment outcomes in children, although device use may be higher in children with private insurance and higher SES. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce barriers to treatment and improve adherence.