History Podcasts

Francovish APD-116 - History

Francovish APD-116 - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Francovich

Albert Anthony Francovich, born 23 January 1920 at Shamokin Pa.' enlisted in the Navy 8 March 1939.

As an aviation machinist's mate first class with a patrol squadron in the Solomons Operation, he was killed in action 6 September 1942. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for his great heroism in standing to his gun although mortally wounded in an engagement with a Japanese four engined seaplane.

The name Francovich was assigned to DE-379 on 31 May 1944, canceled on 6 June 1944.

(APD-116: dp. 1,390; 1. 306'; b. 37', dr. 12'7"1 s. 24 k; vpl. 204; a. 1 5"; cl. Crosley)

The first Francovich (APD-116) (ex-DE-606), was reclassified 17 July 1944, launched 5 June 1945 by Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Hingham, Mass., sponsored by Mrs. Mary F. Edmunds, sister of Aviation Machinist's Mate First Class Francovich; and commissioned 6 September 1945, Lieutenant Commander M. Maclean, USNR, in command.

After her shakedown training, Francovich arrived at Green Cove Springs 18 November 1945 to give assistance in the inactivation of ships being readied for reserve there. She was placed out of commission in reserve at Green Cove Springs 29 April 1946.


یواس‌اس فرانکوویچ (ای‌پی‌دی-۱۱۶)

یواس‌اس فرانکوویچ (ای‌پی‌دی-۱۱۶) (به انگلیسی: USS Francovich (APD-116) ) یک کشتی بود که طول آن ۳۰۶ فوت (۹۳ متر) بود. این کشتی در سال ۱۹۴۵ ساخته شد.

یواس‌اس فرانکوویچ (ای‌پی‌دی-۱۱۶)
پیشینه
مالک
آب‌اندازی: ۱۹ آوریل ۱۹۴۵
آغاز کار: ۵ ژوئن ۱۹۴۵
اعزام: ۶ سپتامبر ۱۹۴۵
مشخصات اصلی
وزن: 1,400 tons
درازا: ۳۰۶ فوت (۹۳ متر)
پهنا: ۳۷ فوت (۱۱ متر)
آبخور: ۱۲ فوت ۷ اینچ (۴ متر)
سرعت: ۲۳٫۶ گره (۴۳٫۷ کیلومتر بر ساعت؛ ۲۷٫۲ مایل بر ساعت)

این یک مقالهٔ خرد کشتی یا قایق است. می‌توانید با گسترش آن به ویکی‌پدیا کمک کنید.


The Commission decides to set up a European Humanitarian Aid Office.

The Council agrees on reducing the debt of African, Caribbean, Pacific (ACP) states.

Francovich ruling. The European Court of Justice affirms that a Member State injuring a private individual by violating Community law must pay compensation.

The Community accedes to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) becoming the first organisation for economic integration to enjoy full membership of a United Nations specialised agency.


A majority of patients will have a history consistent with recent ocular trauma or surgery. However, in the setting of a spontaneous hyphema further investigation may be required. It is important to ask the patient if they have a past history of bleeding diathesis or anticoagulation therapy, which can be a rare risk factor in the development of a hyphema. It is also important to discuss factors that may predispose the patient to ocular complications of a hyphema, such as a clotting disorders or sickle cell disease.

Sickle cell anemia is an especially important factor to consider. Red blood cells in this disease process can sickle in the anterior chamber causing them to become rigid and unable to easily escape through the trabecular meshwork. This leads to a much greater likelihood of elevated intraocular pressure. Γ] In addition, intravascular sickled red blood cells can cause catastrophic vaso-occlusive vents like central retinal artery occlusion and ischemic optic neuropathy even at mildly elevated intraocular pressure that would not otherwise be a threat to most eyes. Sickle cell anemia is much more common in those of African descent, perhaps as high as 10%. Δ] Even those with sickle trait are at risk, not just those with sickle cell disease.


Effects of Remote Microphone Hearing Aids on Children With Auditory Processing Disorder

Recruitment Details
Pre-assignment Details
Arm/Group Title APD Control Group APD Intervention Group
Arm/Group Description Comprised 13 children diagnosed wit. Comprised 13 children diagnosed wit.
Arm/Group Description Comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and did not receive an intervention. Comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and received the Remote Microphone Hearing Aid intervention right after baseline and for 6 months.
Period Title: Overall Study
Started 13 13
Completed 13 13
Not Completed 0 0
Number Analyzed 13 participants 13 participants 26 participants 116 (16.3) 115 (16.1) 115 (15.9) Sex: Female, Male
Title Listening Inventory For Education Revised (LIFE-R) - Total Score
Description Children questionnaire measured in raw scores. This is the total score.
Description Children questionnaire measured in raw scores. This is the total score of 9 questions on a likert scale from 0 to 5. Thus, this is the summed score. Therefore, minimum value 0, maximum value 45. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences Test (LiSN-S) - Low-cue Speech Reception Threshold Condition
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum v.
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum value +2. Higher scores mean better outcome. Z scores are automatically calculated in the computer test software based on normative sample data on decibel (dB) measures.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences Test (LiSN-S) - High-cue Speech Reception Threshold Condition
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum v.
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum value +2. Higher scores mean better outcome. Z scores are automatically calculated in the computer test software based on normative sample data on decibel (dB) measures.
Time Frame 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences Test (LiSN-S) - Talker Advantage Condition
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum v.
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum value +2. Higher scores mean better outcome. Z scores are automatically calculated in the computer test software based on normative sample data on decibel (dB) measures.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences Test (LiSN-S) - Spatial Advantage Condition
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum v.
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum value +2. Higher scores mean better outcome. Z scores are automatically calculated in the computer test software based on normative sample data on decibel (dB) measures.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences Test (LiSN-S) - Total Advantage Condition
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum v.
Description Speech in noise test measured in z scores. Minimum value -2, maximum value +2. Higher scores mean better outcome. Z scores are automatically calculated in the computer test software based on normative sample data on decibel (dB) measures.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Test of Everyday Attention for Children TEACh - Sustained Auditory Attention Subscale
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory attention. Meas.
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory attention. Measured on scaled scores. Minimum value 1, maximum value 19. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Test of Everyday Attention for Children TEACh - Divided Auditory-Visual Attention Subscale
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory-visual attentio.
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory-visual attention. Measured on scaled scores. Minimum value 1, maximum value 19. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Test of Everyday Attention for Children TEACh - Selective Visual Attention Subscale
Description A validated attention test to test children's visual attention. Measur.
Description A validated attention test to test children's visual attention. Measured on scaled scores. Minimum value 1, maximum value 19. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Test of Everyday Attention for Children TEACh - Divided Auditory Attention Subscale
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory attention. Meas.
Description A validated attention test to test children's auditory attention. Measured on scaled scores. Minimum value 1, maximum value 19. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Children's Auditory Performance Scale - Noise Subscale
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum .
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum value is -5, maximum value is +1. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Children's Auditory Performance Scale - Multiple Inputs Subscale
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum .
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum value is -5, maximum value is +1. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Children's Auditory Performance Scale - Auditory Memory Sequencing Subscale
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum .
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum value is -5, maximum value is +1. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Children's Auditory Performance Scale - Auditory Attention Span Subscale
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum .
Description Parental questionnaire measured in raw unstandardised scores. Minimum value is -5, maximum value is +1. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title The Children's Communication Checklist - 2 - Standard Language Composite Score
Description Parental questionnaire. Average composite of scaled scores are used to.
Description Parental questionnaire. Average composite of scaled scores are used to calculate the outcome, so units are scaled scores. Maximum value is 1, maximum value is 19. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data

APD Group 1 is comprised of 13 children diagnosed with APD and receives the device from the beginning of the study.

APD Group 2 is comprised of 13 children diagnosed with APD and receives the device 6 months later than APD Group 1.

Title The Children's Communication Checklist - 2 - Non-Standard Language Composite Score
Description Parental questionnaire. Average composite of scaled scores are used to.
Description Parental questionnaire. Average composite of scaled scores are used to calculate the outcome, so units are scaled scores. Maximum value is 1, maximum value is 19. Higher score means better outcome.
Time Frame Baseline to 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data
Title Screening Instrument For Targeting Educational Risk Performance Scale - Attention Subscale
Description Raw unstandardised score measured in Likert Scale (5 scales). Minimum .
Description Raw unstandardised score measured in Likert Scale (5 scales). Minimum score is 1, maximum score is 5. Higher score means better outcome. The three Attention Subscales are averaged to create one combined score.
Time Frame 6 months
Outcome Measure Data Outcome Measure Data

APD Group 1 is comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and acts as a control without using any form of intervention.

No intervention: No intervention is assigned

APD Group 2 is comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and receives the intervention at the start of the study.

Remote Microphone Hearing Aids: The ear receivers connect wirelessly with the microphone being worn by the teacher within a range of 25m.

Time Frame Adverse event data were collection for a period of 6 months.
Adverse Event Reporting Description The concern that spatial listening of children would be affected by the intervention was monitored through the use of the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test.
Arm/Group Title APD Control Group APD Intervention Group
Arm/Group Description Comprised 13 children diagnosed wit. Comprised 13 children diagnosed wit.
Arm/Group Description Comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and did not receive any intervention. Comprised 13 children diagnosed with APD and received the Remote Microphone Hearing Aid intervention right after baseline and for 6 months.
All-Cause Mortality
APD Control Group APD Intervention Group
Affected / at Risk (%) Affected / at Risk (%)
Total 0/13 (0.00%) 0/13 (0.00%)
Serious Adverse Events Serious Adverse Events
APD Control Group APD Intervention Group
Affected / at Risk (%) Affected / at Risk (%)
Total 0/13 (0.00%) 0/13 (0.00%)
Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events
Frequency Threshold for Reporting Other Adverse Events 0%
APD Control Group APD Intervention Group
Affected / at Risk (%) Affected / at Risk (%)
Total 0/13 (0.00%) 0/13 (0.00%)

You've only scratched the surface of Francovich family history.

Between 1951 and 2003, in the United States, Francovich life expectancy was at its lowest point in 1985, and highest in 2001. The average life expectancy for Francovich in 1951 was 31, and 90 in 2003.

An unusually short lifespan might indicate that your Francovich ancestors lived in harsh conditions. A short lifespan might also indicate health problems that were once prevalent in your family. The SSDI is a searchable database of more than 70 million names. You can find birthdates, death dates, addresses and more.


Allan Francovich Filmmaker Made Documentary on CIA

Allan Francovich, 56, a documentary filmmaker best known for his film examining the Central Intelligence Agency. Francovich, who studied film at UC Berkeley, made the controversial work called “On Company Business: A Documentary History of the Central Intelligence Agency” in 1980. The film, termed “disturbing” in a 1983 Times review when it was circulated to theaters, has since been televised by PBS. Describing various illicit covert actions by the United States in other countries, the documentary received the International Critics Award at the Berlin Film Festival and the Jury Prize at the Leipzig Film Festival. Francovich’s most recent documentary was “The Maltese Double Cross” in 1994, which focuses on the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland. That film won first prize for documentary at the Edinburgh Film Festival. Other documentaries by Francovich include “San Francisco Good Times,” “Chile in the Heart,” “The Houses Are Full of Smoke,” and “Murder in Mississippi.” A native of New York City, Francovich grew up in the mountains of Bolivia and Peru, where his father was a mining engineer. In addition to earning his master’s degree from UC Berkeley, Francovich also studied at the universities of San Marcos in Lima, Peru, and Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., and the Sorbonne in Paris. On Thursday in Houston of a heart attack.

These trips will take you to priceless places, and our pro tips will help you dig deeper.

Californians can now access a digital copy of their COVID-19 vaccination record as part of a new system unveiled by the state, officials said.

The allegations of misconduct and inappropriate “boundary crossing” at the Thacher School date to the 1980s.

Disneyland and Disney California Adventure have lifted rules about crowds and distancing. Fireworks are coming back. But some changes will stick.

A growing contingent of medical experts is questioning the conventional wisdom that healthy children should get COVID-19 shots as soon as possible.


References

1. American Academy of Audiology. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder (2010). Available online at: https://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/CAPD%20Guidelines%208-2010.pdf_539952af956c79.73897613.pdf (accessed February 7, 2021).

2. BSA. Position Statement and Practice Guidance: Auditory Processing Disorder. (2017) Available online at: http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/APD-Position-Statement-Practice-Guidance-APD-2017.pdf (accessed February 22, 2020).

3. Del Zoppo C, Sanchez L, Lind C. A long-term follow-up of children and adolescents referred for assessment of auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol. (2015) 54:368�. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.972523

4. Koohi N, Vickers D, Lakshmanan R, Hoskote C, Werring D, Warren J, et al. Hearing characteristics of stroke patients: prevalence and characteristics of hearing impairment and auditory processing disorders in stroke patients. J Am Acad Audiol. (2017) 28:491�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15139

5. Gates GA. Central presbycusis: an emerging view. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. (2012) 147:1𠄲. doi: 10.1177/0194599812446282

6. Quaranta N, Coppola F, Casulli M, Barulli MR, Panza F, Tortelli R, et al. The prevalence of peripheral and central hearing impairment and its relation to cognition in older adults. Audiol Neurootol. (2014) 19:10𠄴. doi: 10.1159/000371597

7. Hardy C, Marshall C, Golden H, Clark C, Mummery C, Griffiths T, et al. Hearing, and dementia. J Neurol. (2016) 263:2339�. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8208-y

8. Moschopoulos N, Nimatoudis I, Kaprinis S, Iliadou V. Assessment of auditory processing deficits in schizophrenia: Literature review and suggestions for future research. Scand J Psychol. (2019) 60:116�. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12514

9. Kraus M, Walker T, Jarskog L, Millet R, Keefe R. Basic auditory processing deficits and their association with auditory emotion recognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. (2019) 204:155�. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2018.08.031

10. Brewer C, Zalewski C, King K, Zobay O, Riley A, Ferguson M, et al. Heritability of non-speech auditory processing skills. Eur J Hum Genet. (2016) 24:1137�. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.277

11. ASHA. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders (Technical Report). (2015). Available online at: www.asha.org/policy (accessed February 20, 2020).

12. Nagao K, Riegner T, Padilla J, Greenwood LA, Loson J, Zavala S, et al. Prevalence of auditory processing disorder in school-aged children in the Mid-Atlantic Region. J Am Acad Audiol. (2016) 27:691�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15020

13. Hind SE, Haines-Bazrafshan R, Benton C, Brassington W, Towel B, Moore DR. Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Int J Audiol. (2011) 50:708�. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.582049

14. Iliadou V, Ptok M, Grech H, Pedersen E, Brechmann A, Deggouj N, et al. European 17 countries consensus endorses more approaches to APD than reported in Wilson. Int J Audiol. (2018) 57:395𠄶. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1442937

15. Bamiou D, Iliadou V, Zanchetta S, Spyridakou C. What can we learn about auditory processing from adult hearing questionnaires? J Am Acad of Audiol. (2015) 26:824�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15009

16. Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2009) 52:706�. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0226)

17. Dawes P, Bishop DV. The SCAN-C in testing for auditory processing disorder in a sample of British children. Int J Audiol. (2007) 46:780𠄶. doi: 10.1080/14992020701545906

18. Riccio CA, Hynd GW, Cohen MJ, Hall J, Molt L. Comorbidity of central auditory disorder and attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1994) 33:849�. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199407000-00011

19. Brandwein AB, Foxe JJ, Butler JS, Frey HP, Bates JC, Shulman L, et al. Neurophysiological indices of atypical auditory processing multisensory integration are associated with symptom severity in autism. J Autism Dev Disord. (2015) 45:230�. doi: 10.1007/s10803-014-2212-9

20. de Wit E, Van Dijk P, Hanekamp S, Visser-Bochane MI, Steenbergen B, van der Schans CP, et al. Same or different: the overlap between children with auditory processing disorders and children with other developmental disorders: a systematic review. Ear Hear. (2018) 39:1�. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000479

22. Kreisman NV, John AB, Kreisman BM, Hall JW, Crandell CC. Psychosocial status of children with auditory processing disorder. J Am Acad Audiol. (2012) 23:222�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.23.3.8

23. Eschenbeck H, Gillé V, Heim-Dreger U, Schock A, Schott A. Daily stress, hearing-specific stress and coping: self-reports from deaf or hard of hearing children and children with auditory processing disorder. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. (2017) 22:49�. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enw053

24. Obuchi C, Ogane S, Sato Y, Kaga K. Auditory symptoms and psychological characteristics in adults with auditory processing disorders. J Otol. (2017) 12:132𠄷. doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2017.05.001

25. Iliadou V, Bamiou DE. Psychometric evaluation of children with auditory processing disorder (APD): comparison with normal-hearing and clinical non-APD groups. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2012) 55:791𠄹. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0035)

26. Chermak GD, Bamiou DE, Iliadou VV, Musiek F. Practical guidelines to minimise language and cognitive confounds in the diagnosis of CAPD: a brief tutorial. Int J Audiol. (2017) 56:499�. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1284351

27. Wilson WJ, Arnott W. Using different criteria to diagnose (central) auditory processing disorder: how big a difference does it make? J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2013) 2013:56:63�. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0352)

28. International Bureau for Audiophonologie. (2007). Available online at: https://www.biap.org/en/recommandations/recommendations/tc-30-central-auditory-processes-cap (accessed June 24, 2020).

29. Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Canadian Guidelines on Auditory Processing Disorder in Children and Adults: Assessment & Intervention. (2012). Available online at: https://www.ooaq.qc.ca/media/qf4ar4jk/canadian_guidelines_en.pdf (accessed February 7, 2021).

30. Esplin J, Wright C. Auditory Processing Disorder: New Zealand Review. A Report Prepared for the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. (2014). Available online at: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/auditory processing_disorder.pdf (accessed June 24, 2020).

31. Danish Medical Audiological Society. Udredning og behandling af Auditory Processing Disorder. (2014). Available online at: http://dsohh.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSOHH-KKR-APD1.pdf (accessed February 7, 2021).

32. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Phoniatrie und Pudiologie (DGPP). Leitlinie Auditive Verarbeitungs-und-Wahrnehmungs störungen. (2019). Available online at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/049-012l_S1_Auditive-Verarbeitungs-Wahrnehmungsstoerungen-AVWS_2020-01.pdf (accessed February 7, 2021).

33. Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H. Efficacy of the LiSN & Learn auditory training software: randomized blinded controlled study. Audiol Res. (2012) 2:15. doi: 10.4081/audiores.2012.e15

34. Song J, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cereb Cortex. (2012) 22:1180�. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr196

35. Bamiou DE, Campbell N, Sirimanna T. Management of auditory processing disorders. Audiol Med. (2006) 4:46�. doi: 10.1080/16513860600630498

36. Johnston KN, John AB, Kreisman NV, Hall JW III, Crandell CC. Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). Int J Audiol. (2009) 48:371�. doi: 10.1080/14992020802687516

37. Reynolds S, Miller Kuhaneck H, Pfeiffer B. Systematic review of the effectiveness of frequency modulation devices in improving academic outcomes in children with auditory processing difficulties. Am J Occup Ther. (2016) 70:1�. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2016.016832

38. Lewis MS, Hutter M, Lilly DJ, Bourdette D, Saunders J, Fausti SA. Frequency-modulation (fm) technology as a method for improving speech perception in noise for individuals with multiple sclerosis. J Am Acad Audiol. (2006) 17:605�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.8.7

39. Saunders GH, Frederick MT, Arnold ML, Silverman SC, Chisolm TH, Myers PJ. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate approaches to auditory rehabilitation for blast-exposed veterans with normal or near-normal hearing who report hearing problems in difficult listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol. (2018 29:44�. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16143

40. Hind S. Survey of care pathway for auditory processing disorder. Audiol Med. (2006) 4:12�. doi: 10.1080/16513860500534543

41. Fouché-Copley C, Govender S, Khan N. The practices, challenges and recommendations of South African audiologists regarding managing children with auditory processing disorders. S Afr J Commun Disord. (2016) 63:132. doi: 10.4102/sajcd.v63i1.132

42. Baldry NA, Hind SE. Auditory processing disorder in children: awareness and attitudes of UK GPs and ENT consultants. Audiol Med. (2008) 6:193�. doi: 10.1080/16513860802116668

43. Ryan A, Logue-Kennedy M. Exploration of teachers' awareness and knowledge of (Central) auditory processing disorder ((C) APD). Br J Spec Educ. (2013) 40:167�. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12041

44. Department for Education, Education Funding Agency. Acoustic Design of Schools: Performance Standards. Building bulletin 93 (2015). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bb93-acoustic-design-of-schools-performance-standards (accessed February 21, 2020).

45. Shield B, Conetta R, Dockrell J, Connolly D, Cox T, Mydlarz C. A survey of acoustic conditions and noise levels in secondary school classrooms in England. J Acoust Soc Am. (2015) 137:177�. doi: 10.1121/1.4904528

46. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006) 3:77�. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

47. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. (2019) 11:589�. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

49. UK Legislation. Equality Act 2010. (2010). Available online at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (accessed February 19, 2020).

50. Emanuel DC, Ficca KN, Korczak P. Survey of the diagnosis and management of auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol. (2011) 20:48�. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2011/10-0019)

51. Loo JH, Bamiou DE, Campbell N, Luxon LM. Computer-based auditory training (CBAT): benefits for children with language- and reading-related learning difficulties. Dev Med Child Neurol. (2010) 52:708�. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03654.x

52. ICD, Beta Version 2020 Available online at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/icd11knownissues.pdf?ua=1 (accessed December 14, 2020).

53. NHS UK. Auditory Processing Disorder. (2020). Available online at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/auditory-processing-disorder (accessed December 14, 2020).

Keywords: auditory processing disorder, patient survey, qualitative, patient experience, questionnaire

Citation: Agrawal D, Dritsakis G, Mahon M, Mountjoy A and Bamiou DE (2021) Experiences of Patients With Auditory Processing Disorder in Getting Support in Health, Education, and Work Settings: Findings From an Online Survey. Front. Neurol. 12:607907. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.607907

Received: 18 September 2020 Accepted: 26 January 2021
Published: 18 February 2021.

Konstantina M. Stankovic, Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School, United States

Denise Utsch Gon๺lves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Takeshi Tsutsumi, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan

Copyright © 2021 Agrawal, Dritsakis, Mahon, Mountjoy and Bamiou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.



Comments:

  1. Amo

    I am final, I am sorry, but, in my opinion, there is other way of the decision of a question.

  2. Hildebrand

    This idea is just about

  3. Kerr

    It agree, very good message



Write a message