Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Hearing Screening (hearing + screening)
Selected AbstractsThe Need for Standardization of Methods for Worldwide Infant Hearing Screening: A Systematic ReviewTHE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 10 2008Bolajoko O. Olusanya MBBS, FMCPaed, FRCPCH Abstract No uniform case definition presently exists for infant hearing screening programs worldwide especially for minimal hearing loss (HL). This article systematically reviewed the current practices in developing countries for programs aimed at early detection of "disabling" congenital and early-onset HL and found significant variations which undermine comparability of key findings in the reported studies. Implications for the exclusion of minimal HL are explored within the context of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization and its adapted version for children and youth (ICF-CY). A revised World Health Organization classification that accounts for all categories of HL based on ICF-CY may provide a suitable framework for improved uniformity in reporting standards. [source] Outcomes and Efficacy of Newborn Hearing Screening: Strengths and Weaknesses (Success or Failure?),THE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 7 2008S. Korres MD Abstract Objective: To assess the outcomes of neonatal hearing screening with regard to the final diagnosis in a very large number of newborns and investigate related strengths and weaknesses of the program. Subjects: In this study, 76,560 newborns were assessed. Method: All neonates were assessed using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). Results: From the 76,560 neonates screened, 1,564 (2%) failed the test. According to the screening protocol, all parents of failed neonates were asked to bring their children 1 month following discharge to repeat the test. Of the 541 (34.6%) newborns who repeated the test, 303 (56%) were found normal and 238 (44%) again failed TEOAE. The latter children were referred to two special public centers for full audiology evaluation. In addition, 124 neonates were also referred due to other reasons revealed in the screening process (family history, high levels of bilirubin, etc.). Of the 362 children who were referred to the two special audiology centers, 113 (31.2%) were evaluated by these two centers. In addition, 42 children who had failed initial screening and did not show up for a follow-up appointment to repeat TEOAE were also assessed in the same centers. Of the 155 children who had a special audiologic evaluation, 56 (36.1%) were found to have hearing loss (HL) and 99 (63.9%) normal hearing. In detail, 28 had bilateral sensorineural HL greater than 40 dB, 10 had unilateral sensorineural HL greater than 40 dB, and 18 had otitis media with effusion or other conductive HL. Conclusions: Derived from the present study: 1) repeated testing of "failed" newborns in the maternity hospital and before discharge leads to an acceptable referral rate of 2%; 2) the 1-month follow-up of "failed" newborns further limits the false positive results but leads to high rate of newborns lost to follow-up; 3) a dedicated secretariat system should be implemented to follow-up each "failed" newborn and remind parents about their follow-up appointments; and 4) additional measures such as detailed educational material and parental friendly approach should also be implemented. [source] Universal newborn hearing screening: a 27-month experience in the French region of Champagne-ArdenneACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 8 2007Marianne Lévêque Abstract Objectives: This article reports the creation of a Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) program in a French region, Champagne-Ardenne, and the results of its first 27 months. Materials and Methods: We introduced a UNHS program in all the Champagne-Ardenne maternities in order to screen all newborns in the region. We used a two-step strategy. The first test consists of automated transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and is performed before discharge by a nurse or a midwife. If TEOAE are absent in both ears (positive screening test), the baby is referred to the second test, which could be either TEOAE or automated auditory brainstem response (aABR) 15 days after discharge, by a physician in an outpatient clinic. If the retest is positive in both ears, the baby is referred to diagnostic tests in a reference centre. This procedure also applies to newborns in neonatal intensive care units but, in those cases, the first test procedure is aABR because of the higher incidence of auditory neuropathies in those units. UNHS data are recorded with the other neonatal screening tests in the Regional Neonatal Screening Center, which facilitates the follow-up of newborns. Results: A total of 33 873 newborns were screened, which represents a coverage rate of 92.42%. In those babies, 33 431 had a negative first test and 429 were retested. There were 34 positive retests. Among those 34 children, 27 were actually deaf (0.08%). The median age at diagnosis was shortened from 17 months to 10 weeks. Conclusion: Those 27-month results demonstrate the validity of our UNHS program, which relies on the cooperation with maternities, an easy protocol and a strong follow-up procedure. [source] Long-Term Effectiveness of Screening for Hearing Loss: The Screening for Auditory Impairment,Which Hearing Assessment Test (SAI-WHAT) Randomized TrialJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 3 2010Bevan Yueh MD OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hearing screening on long-term hearing outcomes in a general population of older veterans. DESIGN: Hearing loss in the elderly is underdetected and undertreated. Routine hearing screening has been proposed, but it is not clear whether screening identifies patients who are sufficiently motivated to adhere to treatment. A four-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare three screening strategies with no screening in 2,305 older veterans seeking general medical care. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. INTERVENTIONS: The screening strategies were a tone-emitting otoscope, a widely used questionnaire about hearing handicap, and a combination of both tools. MEASUREMENTS: Hearing aid use 1 year after screening. RESULTS: Of participants who underwent screening with the tone-emitting otoscope, questionnaire, and combined testing, 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6%, respectively, screened positive for hearing loss (P<.01 for test of equality across three arms). Patients proceeded to formal audiology evaluation 14.7%, 23.0%, and 26.6% of the time in the same screening arms, compared with 10.8% in the control arm (P<.01 for test of equality across four arms). Hearing aid use 1 year after screening was 6.3%, 4.1%, and 7.4% in the same arms, compared with 3.3% in the control arm (P<.01). Hearing aid users experienced significant improvements in hearing-related function and communication ability. CONCLUSION: In older veterans, screening for hearing loss led to significantly more hearing aid use. Screening with the tone-emitting otoscope was more efficient. The results are most applicable to older populations with few cost barriers to hearing aids. [source] Post-natal hearing loss in universal neonatal hearing screening communities: Current limitations and future directionsJOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH, Issue 3 2008Nicole Hutt Abstract: Universal hearing screening has dramatically improved outcomes for babies born with detectable hearing abnormalities; yet there are some infants who develop significant hearing problems after passing a neonatal screen. There is much conjecture as to the number and the characteristics of infants with post-natal hearing losses; yet evidence suggests that many children may be affected, and that a large proportion have no discoverable cause. Currently, screening programmes use lists of risk factors to enrol babies into surveillance programmes. This practice is problematic because audiological follow-ups are expensive and under-utilised, and parental disclosure is often inaccurate. The large databases from universal neonatal programmes could inform the development of effective, evidence-based practice and policy for the detection and intervention of children who develop post-natal hearing losses. [source] Candidate's Thesis: Universal Newborn Hearing Screening in an Inner-City, Managed Care Environment ,THE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 6 2000Glenn Isaacson MD Abstract Objectives/Hypothesis Universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) programs aim to identify and treat educationally significant hearing loss in the first months of life. Several states have mandated UNHS for all newborns. Such programs have been successful in small, homogeneous populations. As larger states attempt to implement such programs, important obstacles have arisen, particularly in sparsely populated rural environments and in the inner city, where poverty, unstable living situations, and inadequate access to health care make follow-up of infants failing initial testing difficult. Study Design We performed a prospective longitudinal study e-amining the effects of increasingly comple- and e-pensive interventions designed to ensure that children failing initial hearing screening returned for complete evaluation and habilitation. Methods A UNHS program based on transient evoked otoacoustic emissions testing was implemented at Temple University Hospital, with 2,000 births per year. At 6 months into the program, efficacy was assessed and modifications in follow-up methodology were made in an attempt to improved rate of return of infants failing newborn screening. The effect of these interventions was reassessed 6 months later. Results In its first 12 months, the Temple University Infant and Young Child Hearing Intervention Initiative successfully screened 95% (2,031) of all newborns using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Collecting a complete database profile for each newborn, establishing rapport with the family, and offering immediate follow-up appointments yielded a 61% return rate after discharge. The addition of a dedicated project secretary, free day-care for siblings, and cab vouchers for transportation and the elimination of a requirement for health maintenance organization referrals increased follow-up yield to 75%. Conclusion Given adequate resources and planning, UNHS can be successful, even in economically depressed environments. [source] Non-hospital delivery and permanent congenital and early-onset hearing loss in a developing countryBJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 11 2008BO Olusanya Objective, The objective of this study was to determine the role of non-hospital delivery and other risk factors for permanent congenital and early-onset hearing loss (PCEHL) in a developing country. Design, Matched case,control study. Setting, Four primary healthcare centres in inner-city Lagos, Nigeria. Population, Fifty-six infants with PCEHL and 280 normal hearing controls matched for age and sex from a population of infants not older than 3 months attending Bacille de Calmette-Guérin immunisation clinics. Methods, Conditional logistic regression analyses of infant and maternal characteristics associated with PCEHL, and the evaluation of population exposure to each risk factor. Main outcome measures, Adjusted matched odds ratios and population attributable risk percent (PAR%). Results, Children with PCEHL were significantly more likely to be first born (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1,3.6) without skilled attendants at birth (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3,4.5) and have a history of neonatal jaundice requiring exchange blood transfusion (NNJ/EBT) (OR 9.6, 95% CI 2.4,38.2) but less likely to be small for gestational age (SGA) (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0,0.5). After controlling for other covariates, the absence of skilled attendants at birth (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.0,8.6) and NNJ/EBT (OR 19.1, 95% CI 4.3,85.5) emerged as predictors of PCEHL, while SGA (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0,0.2) retained its inverse relationship with PCEHL. The PAR% was 35.9% for the lack of skilled attendants at birth and 10.6% for having NNJ/EBT. About 23% of children with PCEHL did not exhibit any risk factors. Conclusions, NNJ/EBT and the absence of skilled attendant at birth rather than the place of delivery are significant predictors of PCEHL in this study population. Targeted hearing screening using these risk factors would facilitate the detection of about 77% of children with PCEHL. [source] Universal newborn hearing screening: a 27-month experience in the French region of Champagne-ArdenneACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 8 2007Marianne Lévêque Abstract Objectives: This article reports the creation of a Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) program in a French region, Champagne-Ardenne, and the results of its first 27 months. Materials and Methods: We introduced a UNHS program in all the Champagne-Ardenne maternities in order to screen all newborns in the region. We used a two-step strategy. The first test consists of automated transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and is performed before discharge by a nurse or a midwife. If TEOAE are absent in both ears (positive screening test), the baby is referred to the second test, which could be either TEOAE or automated auditory brainstem response (aABR) 15 days after discharge, by a physician in an outpatient clinic. If the retest is positive in both ears, the baby is referred to diagnostic tests in a reference centre. This procedure also applies to newborns in neonatal intensive care units but, in those cases, the first test procedure is aABR because of the higher incidence of auditory neuropathies in those units. UNHS data are recorded with the other neonatal screening tests in the Regional Neonatal Screening Center, which facilitates the follow-up of newborns. Results: A total of 33 873 newborns were screened, which represents a coverage rate of 92.42%. In those babies, 33 431 had a negative first test and 429 were retested. There were 34 positive retests. Among those 34 children, 27 were actually deaf (0.08%). The median age at diagnosis was shortened from 17 months to 10 weeks. Conclusion: Those 27-month results demonstrate the validity of our UNHS program, which relies on the cooperation with maternities, an easy protocol and a strong follow-up procedure. [source] Prevalence and independent risk factors for hearing loss in NICU infantsACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 8 2007Elysée TM Hille Abstract Aim: To determine the prevalence and independent relationship between hearing loss and risk factors in a representative neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) population. Methods: Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) hearing screening has been introduced since 1998 in the Dutch NICUs. After a second AABR failure, diagnostic ABR was used to establish diagnosis of hearing loss. Newborns who died before the age of 3 months were excluded. In the present study only the NICU infants who were born with a gestational age <30 weeks and/or a birth weight <1000 g between October 1, 1998 and January 1, 2002 were included. Risk factors included in the study were familial hearing loss, in utero infections, craniofacial anomalies, birth weight <1500g, hyperbilirubinemia, ototoxic medications, cerebral complications, severe birth asphyxia, assisted ventilation ,5 days and syndromes. Results: A nationwide cohort of 2186 newborns were included. Mean gestational age was 28.5 weeks (SD 1.6) and mean birth weight was 1039 g (SD 256). Prevalence of uni- or bilateral hearing loss was 3.2% (71/2186; 95% CI 2.6,4.1). Multivariate analysis revealed that the only independent risk factors for hearing loss were severe birth asphyxia (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.0,2.7) and assisted ventilation ,5 days (OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.1,6.0). Conclusion: The prevalence of hearing loss in a representative NICU population was 3.2%. Independent risk factors for hearing loss were severe birth asphyxia and assisted ventilation ,5 days. [source] Implementation of a nation-wide automated auditory brainstem response hearing screening programme in neonatal intensive care unitsACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 3 2003HLM van Straaten Aim: As part of a future national neonatal hearing screening programme in the Netherlands, automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) hearing screening was implemented in seven neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The objective was to evaluate key outcomes of this programme: participation rate, first stage success rate, pass/referral rates, rescreening compliance, diagnostic referral rates, age of first diagnostic evaluation and prevalence of congenital hearing loss (CHL). Methods: This prospective cohort study collected data on 2513 survivors. NICU graduates with one or more risk factors according to the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing were included in a two-stage AABR hearing screening programme. Conventional ABR was used to establish a diagnosis of CHL. Results: A total of 2513 newborns enrolled in the programme with a median gestational age of 31.6 (range 24,43) wk and a median birthweight of 1450 (range 510,4820) g. In 25 (1%) cases parents refused screening. Four out of 2513 newborns were initially lost; 2484 newborns have been tested initially. A final 98% participation rate (2465/2513) was obtained for the whole programme. After a median postmenstrual age at the first test of 33.7 (range 27,54) wk, a pass rate of 2284/2484 (92%) resulted at the first stage. The rescreening compliance after the first test was 92% (184/200). A referral rate for diagnostic ABR of 3.1% (77/2484) resulted. Of the 77 referrals 14 (18.2%) had normal screening thresholds, 15 (19.5%) had unilateral CHL and 48 (62.3%) had bilateral CHL. The prevalence of unilateral CHL was 0.6% (15/2484) and of bilateral CHL 1.9% (48/2484). Conclusion: A financially supported two-stage AABR hearing screening programme can be successfully incorporated in NICU centres and detects a high prevalence of CHL in NICU graduates. Neonatal hearing screening should be part of standard clinical practice in all NICU infants. [source] | ||||||||||