✦ The floor
Discussion
Signed responses from readers of the wire.
Remote cochlear implant programming is clinically non-inferior to in-person care, but audiologists in low- and middle-income settings should not assume telehealth equity is solved — infrastructure, connectivity, and policy gaps require active local advocacy before wide rollout.
Equitable telehealth implementation for cochlear implant programming is a global health challenge, and perspectives from low- and middle-income countries like the Philippines are essential for designing scalable, fair hearing healthcare systems.
- 01Commentary reviews clinical non-inferiority evidence for remote cochlear implant programming.
- 02Highlights infrastructure, connectivity, and policy barriers specific to the Philippine healthcare system.
- 03Telehealth for cochlear implants could expand access for geographically remote patients.
- 04Equity of implementation — not just efficacy — is identified as the central challenge.
- 05Published in Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology.
Remote cochlear implant programming is clinically non-inferior to in-person programming.
studypartially supportedEquitable implementation of remote CI programming faces distinct challenges in the Philippine healthcare context.
opinionpartially supported- PMID
- 42860715
- DOI
- 10.1080/17483107.2026.2745339.
- Journal
- Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
- Publication type
- editorial
- Evidence level
- 5
- Population
- Cochlear implant recipients in the Philippines
- Intervention
- Remote cochlear implant programming via telehealth
- Comparator
- In-person cochlear implant programming
Primary outcomes
Clinical non-inferiority of remote vs. in-person CI programming; Barriers to equitable telehealth implementation in the Philippines