Accuracy and use of the reflexive behavioral (“Baah”) test and risk factor questionnaire for hearing screening in infants six months old and below

Objective@#To determine the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and use of the Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” Test and NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires in detecting hearing impairment in rural health communities. @*Methods@#This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted at the rural health unit of five municipalities. Infants less than six months old were screened for hearing impairments using the OAE device (standard), the Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” test, and the NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires. The “Baah” test and the filling out of the NHSRC Level 1 and 2 Questionnaires were done by trained health workers while OAE was done by an audiologist. @*Results@#A total of 103 babies, with a mean age of 41.9 days at the time of testing and a male to female ratio of 1.02:1 (52 males and 51 females) were tested. A hearing impairment prevalence of 4.9% (5 out of 103) was noted. The “Baah” test showed to have a sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 97.96% and an accuracy rate of 96.12%. The NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rate of 40%, 67.35% and 66.02%, respectively for the former and 40%, 85.71% and 83.50%, respectively for the latter. Analysis of the complimentary use of the NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires with the “Baah” test also showed no significant improvement to using the “Baah” test as a stand-alone screening tool with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 60%, 67.35% and 66.99%, respectively for the “Baah” test and Level 1 Questionnaire, and 60%, 83.67% and 82.52%, respectively for the “Baah” test and Level 2 Questionnaire. @*Conclusion@#The Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” test is a potentially accurate, sensitive, specific, and acceptable standalone hearing screening test to identify infants with higher risk of hearing impairment in the rural health community setting. On the other hand, the use of the NHSRC Questionnaires as a stand-alone or complementary tool for “Baah” is unnecessary as it results to more false positive and false negative results.

Evaluation of the newborn hearing screening program in The Medical City based on Joint Commission on Infant Hearing (JCIH) 2007 position statement quality indicators

Objective@#The objective of this study is to evaluate the newborn hearing screening program in The Medical City based on the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) 2007 Position Statement Quality Indicators. @*Methods@#Study Design: Cross - Sectional Survey. Setting: Tertiary Private Hospital. Participants: All newborns who underwent newborn hearing screening in The Medical City for the year 2015. @*Results@#Of 2,010 patients delivered in the hospital in year 2015, 1,986 (98.8%) were screened. Among the 59 babies with initial “refer” results, 15 (25.42%) “referred” a second time while 24 (40.68%) “passed” the rescreening. Twenty (33.89%) did not undergo rescreening (10 were classified as dropouts, while another 10 did not undergo rescreening for various reasons. Of those who “referred” during rescreening, only 9 (60%) had further evaluation done with ABR/ASSR. Among these, 4 (26.66%) had hearing loss and proceeded with the appropriate monitoring and management while 5 (33.33%) had normal hearing. @*Conclusion@#The current newborn hearing screening program in the Medical City was able to reach JCIH 2007 quality indicators for screening but not for confirmation of hearing Loss. All patients with hearing loss were managed with early rehabilitation.