Background: Little is known about the impact of otitis media (OM) on the quality of life (QoL) of children living in NSW. This study aimed to investigate the use of the OM-6 (Otitis Media-6) survey to assess the QoL of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children receiving ventilation tubes (VTs) for OM. Methods: Parents/caregivers of children receiving VT tubes for OM were invited to self-administer the six question OM survey pre-surgery, together with a brief demographic questionnaire. Parents/caregivers were approached on the morning of their child’s surgery in the wards of two public hospitals located in the Hunter New England region of NSW. The OM-6 was administered post-surgery at a 6-week follow-up phone call between the research co-ordinator and the study participants. Results: Parents/caregivers of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children were equally likely to complete the questionnaire on the day of surgery and at follow-up. The initial uptake was 100%; and follow-up completion, 69%. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the 101 children were Aboriginal. Significant QoL improvements were evident for each OM domain after VT tube insertion; there was no significant difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. Conclusions: The survey provided the first data on QoL for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children with OM in the HNELHD regions of NSW. The similarity in responses for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children indicates more research is needed to understand the higher prevalence of OM in Aboriginal children.
History
Journal title
Australian Journal of Otolaryngology
Volume
5
Article number
5
Publisher
AME Publishing Company
Language
en, English
College/Research Centre
College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing
School
School of Medicine and Public Health
Rights statement
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the noncommercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.