Learning to cope with mirror movements in unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a brief report.

PURPOSE: Mirror movements (MM) in unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (USCP) interfere with many bimanual activities of daily living. METHODS: Here, we developed a specific bimanual therapeutic regimen, focusing on asymmetric simultaneous movements of the two hands. Twelve children (6-17 years old; complete data available in ten children) with USCP and MM were included. RESULTS: After three weeks of inpatient rehabilitation, we observed significant improvements for two self-defined bimanual goal activities (Goal Attainment Scaling, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure) and for bimanual performance in general (Assisting Hand Assessment). These improvements were still present 6 months later. In contrast, even immediately after therapy, the severity of MM had not changed. CONCLUSIONS: Hence, targeted bimanual therapy improved bimanual performance, but did not lead to a reduction of MM. The results of this pilot study might suggest that children with MM benefit more from acquiring strategies to cope with MM than by an active training which aimed to reduce MM.

Mental health problems in adolescents with cochlear implants: peer problems persist after controlling for additional handicaps.

The aims of the present multi-center study were to investigate the extent of mental health problems in adolescents with a hearing loss and cochlear implants (CIs) in comparison to normal hearing (NH) peers and to investigate possible relations between the extent of mental health problems of young CI users and hearing variables, such as age at implantation, or functional gain of CI. The survey included 140 adolescents with CI (mean age = 14.7, SD = 1.5 years) and 140 NH adolescents (mean age = 14.8, SD = 1.4 years), their parents and teachers. Participants were matched by age, gender and social background. Within the CI group, 35 adolescents were identified as "risk cases" due to possible and manifest additional handicaps, and 11 adolescents were non-classifiable. Mental health problems were assessed with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the versions "Self," "Parent," and "Teacher." The CI group showed significantly more "Peer Problems" than the NH group. When the CI group was split into a "risk-group" (35 "risk cases" and 11 non-classifiable persons) and a "non-risk group" (n = 94), increased peer problems were perceived in both CI subgroups by adolescents themselves. However, no further differences between the CI non-risk group and the NH group were observed in any rater. The CI risk-group showed significantly more hyperactivity compared to the NH group and more hyperactivity and conduct problems compared to the CI non-risk group. Cluster analyses confirmed that there were significantly more adolescents with high problems in the CI risk-group compared to the CI non-risk group and the NH group. Adolescents with CI, who were able to understand speech in noise had significantly less difficulties compared to constricted CI users. Parents, teachers, and clinicians should be aware that CI users with additionally special needs may have mental health problems. However, peer problems were also experienced by CI adolescents without additional handicaps.

Schooling Relates to Mental Health Problems in Adolescents with Cochlear Implants-Mediation by Hearing and Family Variables.

Aim of this multicenter study was to investigate whether schooling relates to mental health problems of adolescents with cochlear implants (CI) and how this relationship is mediated by hearing and family variables. One hundred and forty secondary school students with CI (mean age = 14.7 years, SD = 1.5), their hearing parents and teachers completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Additional audiological tests (speech comprehension tests in quiet and noise) were performed. Students of special schools for hearing impaired persons (SSHIs) showed significantly more conduct problems (p < 0.05) and a significantly higher total difficulty score (TDS) (p < 0.05) compared to students of mainstream schools. Mental health problems did not differ between SSHI students with sign language education and SSHI students with oral education. Late implanted students and those with indication for additional handicaps were equally distributed among mainstream schools and SSHIs. However, students in SSHIs were more restricted to understand speech in noise, had a lower social background and were more likely to come from single-parent families. These factors were found to be partial mediators of the differences in mental health problems between the two school types. However, no variable could explain comprehensively, why students of SSHIs have more mental health problems than mainstream pupils.

Screening of the hearing of newborns - Update.

INTRODUCTION: Permanent congenital bilateral hearing loss (CHL) of moderate or greater degree (≥40 dB HL) is a rare disease, with a prevalence of about 1 to 3 per 1000 births. However, it is one of the most frequent congenital diseases. Reliance on physician observation and parental recognition has not been successful in the past in detecting significant hearing loss in the first year of life. With this strategy significant hearing losses have been detected in the second year of life. With two objective technologies based on physiologic response to sound, otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and auditory brainstem response (ABR) hearing screening in the first days of life is made possible. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this health technology assessment report is to update the evaluation on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening programs. Universal newborn hearing screening (UHNS) (i), selective screening of high risk newborns (ii), and the absence of a systematic screening program are compared for age at identification and age at hearing aid fitting of children with hearing loss. Secondly the potential benefits of early intervention are analysed. Costs and cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening programs are determined. This report is intended to make a contribution to the decision making whether and under which conditions a newborn hearing screening program should be reimbursed by the statutory sickness funds in Germany. METHODS: This health technology assessment report updates a former health technology assessment (Kunze et al. 2004 [1]). A systematic review of the literature was conducted, based on a documented search and selection of the literature using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and a documented extraction and appraisal of the included studies. To assess the cost-effectiveness of the different screening strategies in Germany the decision analytic Markov state model which had been developed in our former health technology assessment report was updated. RESULTS: Universal newborn hearing screening programs are able to substantially reduce the age at identification and the age at intervention of children with CHL to six months of age in the German health care setting. High coverage rates, low fail rates and - if tracking systems are implemented - high follow-up-rates to diagnostic evaluation for test positives were achieved. New publications on potential benefits of early intervention could not be retrieved. For a final assessment of cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening evidence based long-term data are lacking. Decision analytic models with lifelong time horizon assuming that early detection results in improved language abilities and lower educational costs and higher life time productivity showed a potential of UNHS for long term cost savings compared to selective screening and no screening. For the short-term cost-effectiveness with a time horizon up to diagnostic evaluation more evidence based data are available. The average costs per case diagnosed range from 16,000 EURO to 33,600 EURO in Germany and hence are comparable to the cost of other implemented newborn screening programs. Empirical data for cost of selective screening in the German health care setting are lacking. Our decision analytic model shows that selective screening is more cost-effective but detects only 50% of all cases of congenital hearing loss. DISCUSSION: There is good evidence that UNHS-Programs with appropriate quality management can reduce the age at start of intervention below six months. Up to now there is no indication of considerable negative consequences of screening for children with false positive test results and their parents. However, it is more difficult to prove the efficacy of early intervention to improve long-term outcomes. Randomized clinical trials of the efficacy of early intervention for children with CHL hearing losses are inappropriate because of ethical reasons. Prospective cohort studies with long-term outcomes of rare diseases are costly, take a long time and simultaneously substantial benefits of early intervention for language development seem likely. CONCLUSIONS: A UNHS-Program should be implemented in Germany and be reimbursed by the statutory sickness funds. To achieve high coverage and because of better conditions for obtaining low false positive rates UNHS should be performed in hospital after birth. For outpatient deliveries additionally screening measures in an outpatient setting must be provided.

Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Children with congenital hearing impairment benefit from early detection and treatment. At present, no model exists which explicitly quantifies the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) versus other programme alternatives in terms of early diagnosis. It has yet to be considered whether early diagnosis (within the first few months) of hearing impairment is of importance with regard to the further development of the child compared with effects resulting from a later diagnosis. The objective was to systematically compare two screening strategies for the early detection of new-born hearing disorders, UNHS and risk factor screening, with no systematic screening regarding their influence on early diagnosis. DESIGN: Clinical effectiveness analysis using a Markov Model. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature review, empirical data survey, and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION: All newborn babies. TIME SCALE: 6, 12 and 120 months. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. COMPARED STRATEGIES: UNHS, Risk factor screening (RS), no systematic screening (NS). OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality weighted detected child months (QCM). RESULTS: UNHS detected 644 QCM up until the age of 6 months (72,2%). RS detected 393 child months (44,1%) and no systematic screening 152 child months (17,0%). UNHS detected 74,3% and 86,7% weighted child months at 12 and 120 months, RS 48,4% and 73,3%, NS 23,7% and 60,6%. At the age of 6 months UNHS identified approximately 75% of all children born with hearing impairment, RS 50% and NS 25%. At the time of screening UNHS marked 10% of screened healthy children for further testing (false positives), RS 2%. UNHS demonstrated higher effectiveness even under a wide range of relevant parameters. The model was insensitive to test parameters within the assumed range but results varied along the prevalence of hearing impairment. CONCLUSION: We have shown that UNHS is able to detect hearing impairment at an earlier age and more accurately than selective RS. Further research should be carried out to establish the effects of hearing loss on the quality of life of an individual, its influence on school performance and career achievement and the differences made by early fitting of a hearing aid on these factors.

Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of newborn hearing disorders is 1-3 per 1,000. Crucial for later outcome are correct diagnosis and effective treatment as soon as possible. With BERA and TEOAE low-risk techniques for early detection are available. Universal screening is recommended but not realised in most European health care systems. Aim of the study was to examine the scientific evidence of newborn hearing screening and a comparison of medical outcome and costs of different programmes, differentiated by type of strategy (risk screening, universal screening, no systematical screening). METHODS: In an interdisciplinary health technology assessment project all studies on newborn hearing screening detected in a standardized comprehensive literature search were identified and data on medical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness extracted. A Markov model was designed to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Economic data were extracted from 20 relevant publications out of 39 publications found. In the model total costs for screening of 100,000 newborns with a time horizon of ten years were calculated: 2.0 Mio.euro for universal screening (U), 1.0 Mio.euro for risk screening (R), and 0.6 Mio.euro for no screening (N). The costs per child detected: 13,395 euro (U) respectively 6,715 euro (R), and 4,125 euro (N). At 6 months of life the following percentages of cases are detected: U 72%, R 43%, N 13%. CONCLUSIONS: A remarkable small number of economic publications mainly of low methodological quality was found. In our own model we found reasonable cost-effectiveness ratios also for universal screening. Considering the outcome advantages of higher numbers of detected cases a universal newborn hearing screening is recommended.