The goal of this within groups clinical trial is to determine the feasibility of a home-based vestibular balance therapy program for children with vestibular hypofunction. The main questions to be answered are: 1) what is the intervention's feasibility and 2) what is the intervention's preliminary impact on function? Participants will receive a comprehensive battery of vestibular function and balance tests, then an 8-week home-based intervention to be done 5 times/week with weekly checks from the physical therapist. Data will be used to design a larger clinical trial with a comparison group.
Approximately 60-75% of children with severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) also have vestibular hypofunction (VH), resulting in delayed gross motor development, poor postural control, and gaze instability. Although clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for adults with VH, no statements exist for children due to a paucity of high- level studies. The long-term objective of this proposal is to assess feasibility of a home-based vestibular balance therapy (VBT) program for children so that a larger well-powered controlled study can be designed. The specific aims are to assess the intervention's feasibility (Aim 1), estimate its preliminary impact on functional outcomes (Aim 2), and assess participant engagement (secondary Aim). To accomplish this, we will use a prospective single arm feasibility design. We will enroll 15 children with SNHL, aged 4-17 years; 12 with confirmed VH for the VBT, and 3 with normal vestibular function to test the sham intervention. All children will be tested on the functional outcomes: computerized dynamic visual acuity, modified functional gait assessment, and sensory organization test at baseline, 4, and 8 weeks. A physical therapist (PT) will train children/caregivers in the 8-week structured VBT home program consisting of 4 categories of exercises (Times 1 viewing, gaze shifting, static and dynamic balance) done 5 times/week, 5 minutes/exercise. The PT will meet weekly with the child/caregiver in person to systematically progress the exercises. The children in the sham intervention (10 minutes of reading, 10 minutes of play) will also receive weekly meetings with the PT to control for attention bias. To assess Aim 1 (Feasibility) metrics will include process (e.g., recruitment rates), resources (e.g., communication needs), management (e.g., data collection/entry), experience (e.g., barriers). To assess Aim 2 (impact) we will analyze within group changes and effect sizes to design the larger study.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
21
see intervention arm description
see sham intervention arm description
UAB
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Change in Computerized Dynamic Visual Acuity at 4 and 8 weeks
Difference in visual acuity with the head stationary versus moving
Time frame: Baseline (pre), 4 weeks (mid), 8 weeks (post)
Change in Functional Gait Assessment at 4 and 8 weeks
A standardized test of dynamic balance
Time frame: Baseline (pre), 4 weeks (mid), 8 weeks (post)
Change in Sensory Organization Test at 4 and 8 weeks
A standardized test of static postural control
Time frame: Baseline (pre), 4 weeks (mid), 8 weeks (post)
Process Feasibility (Recruitment Rates)
% of individuals who follow through with enrollment procedures
Time frame: through study completion at 2 years
Process Feasibility (Refusal Rate Frequency)
Frequency of refusal to participate in the study
Time frame: through study completion at 2 years
Process Feasibility (Attrition Rates)
% of attrition
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
Process Feasibility (Retention Rates)
% of retention
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
Process Feasibility (Completion Rates)
% of participants who complete 80% of intervention sessions
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
Management Feasibility (training)
time in minutes to train data collectors
Time frame: through year 1
Management Feasibility (data entry)
time in minutes for data entry
Time frame: through year 1
Participant Experience Feasibility (Strategies)
participant strategies that helped them with participation in the study (interview)
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
Participant Experience Feasibility (Enjoyment)
Enjoyment level for each participant (ordinal scale of 0=no enjoyment to 10=extreme enjoyment)
Time frame: through the study period at 2 years
Participant Experience Feasibility (Testing Difficulty)
Participants will rate the level of difficulty of the initial testing session (0=not difficult to 10=extreme difficulty)
Time frame: baseline only - initial testing session
Participant Experience Feasibility (Intervention Difficulty)
Participants will rate the level of difficulty of the overall intervention (0=not difficult to 10=extreme difficulty)
Time frame: once, at each participant's final testing session (8 weeks)
Resource Feasibility (frequency)
Frequency of communication with participants
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
Resource Feasibility (time)
Total time in minutes to communicate with participants
Time frame: through study period at 2 years
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.