A Health Service Research Study on a Low-Threshold Hearing Screening Program for Childhood Cancer Survivors in Switzerland: Protocol for the HEAR Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a common late effect in childhood cancer survivors, caused by ototoxic cancer treatments, such as platinum chemotherapy, cranial radiation with doses of ≥30 Gray, and surgery involving the auditory system. Early recognition of hearing loss as part of follow-up care allows for therapeutic support to mitigate consequences. However, hearing tests are usually only repeated in childhood cancer survivors with abnormal hearing during or right after treatment ends, leaving hearing loss undetected in childhood cancer survivors with late onset or when missed during cancer treatment. Further, general follow-up care attendance may be low after childhood cancer survivors transition to adult care, contributing to missing hearing screening posttherapy. Low attendance may be attributed to childhood cancer survivors finding follow-up care burdensome and time-consuming, lacking awareness of their risk for certain late effects, or the absence of suitable interdisciplinary follow-up clinics. A low-threshold, easily accessible screening program requiring minimal participant effort may address these barriers and improve access to hearing loss screening for childhood cancer survivors. OBJECTIVE: The HEAR study aims to develop, conduct, and evaluate the feasibility of a low-threshold, community-based screening program for hearing loss in childhood cancer survivors, using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, a tool to plan and evaluate health interventions. Within the screening program, participating childhood cancer survivors completed a standardized hearing assessment at a local Swiss hearing aid provider's shop. This approach provides low-threshold access to detect hearing loss as it is easily and conveniently accessible for everyone. METHODS: Eligible childhood cancer survivors were identified through the Childhood Cancer Registry Switzerland and included those diagnosed with cancer between 1976 and 2019 before 21 years and who were ≥2 years post diagnosis. We invited eligible childhood cancer survivors by post. Participants scheduled a hearing test appointment at a hearing aid shop. They completed a baseline questionnaire before the hearing test, and 2 follow-up questionnaires afterward to assess program feasibility and participant experiences. Semistructured interviews with participants, hearing aid shop staff, and group discussions with health care professionals will provide qualitative insights. The RE-AIM framework will guide the program evaluation using the quantitative and qualitative data collected. RESULTS: As of February 2025, all participants have been recruited, and all steps of the study up to the group discussions and the RE-AIM evaluation have been completed. CONCLUSIONS: The HEAR study introduces a novel, simple, and low-threshold approach to screening for hearing loss after cancer treatment through hearing aid shops located in the community and close to participants' homes. This approach has the potential to supplement existing follow-up care programs by reducing the burden of hearing screening for adult childhood cancer survivors and reaching those who might otherwise be lost to follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06036407; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06036407. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63627.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".