ABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: The success of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) programmes is usually evaluated by determining the effect of the early detection of hearing loss on developmental outcome. However, in practice, these programmes do not detect all children with permanent childhood hearing impairment. In this study we determine the sensitivity of the current UNHS programme and analyse the characteristics of the children not detected by UNHS. We performed a nationwide, population-based, retrospective follow-up study in The Netherlands. All children born in 2003-05 and screened in a hearing screening programme (well babies and neonatal intensive care (NICU) graduates) were included for study. The main outcome measure was the sensitivity of the UNHS programme (based on the proportion of children known to have a permanent childhood hearing impairment in 2008 who were identified by UNHS). We also evaluated age at diagnosis, severity, and aetiology of hearing impairment in the children not detected by UNHS. We found that the sensitivity of the current UNHS programme was 0.83 (0.79 for well babies and 0.96 for NICU graduates). Permanent childhood hearing impairment was confirmed before 36 months of age in 96% of the study cohort. Of the children unidentified by the UNHS, > 50% had moderate hearing loss. No predominant cause of hearing impairment was found in these children. CONCLUSION: Our current UNHS programme identified the majority of children with a permanent hearing impairment of congenital cause.
Subject(s)
Hearing Loss/diagnosis , Neonatal Screening/organization & administration , Child, Preschool , Early Diagnosis , Follow-Up Studies , Hearing Loss/epidemiology , Hearing Loss/therapy , Hearing Tests , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Netherlands/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate whether the quality of the Dutch, community based, universal newborn hearing screening programme is consistent over time. DESIGN: Universal newborn hearing screening data from three cohorts are compared on a number of quality targets concerning the outcome of the screening and the process of the screening in a three stage, community based, hearing screening programme. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 552 820 children entered the study (189 794 in 2002-2006; 181 574 in 2008, and 181 452 in 2009). RESULTS: Participation in the programme is high from implementation onwards and increases over time for all screen stages to percentages above 99%. Refer rates are within quality targets and they are consistent over time. The screening is completed within 42 days of birth for 91.5% of the children in the last cohort. Of all children screened, 0.29% to 0.30% are referred to a speech and hearing centre. Participation in diagnostic testing is 93.3% to 95.2%. Of all referred children 77% to 85% receive a diagnosis within 122 days of birth. CONCLUSIONS: A good quality neonatal hearing screening programme in youth health care has been established in the Netherlands. However, both participation in diagnostic testing after a positive screen result and the timing of the diagnostic testing can still be improved.
Subject(s)
Hearing Loss/congenital , Hearing Loss/diagnosis , Mass Screening/standards , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Netherlands , Quality Assurance, Health CareSubject(s)
Cochlear Implantation/statistics & numerical data , Deafness/surgery , Delivery of Health Care , Emigration and Immigration/statistics & numerical data , Healthcare Disparities/trends , Age Factors , Child , Child, Preschool , Cochlear Implantation/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Deafness/diagnosis , Deafness/ethnology , Female , Humans , Infant , Interviews as Topic , Male , Needs Assessment , Netherlands , Risk Assessment , Time Factors , TurkeyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether false-positive outcomes on neonatal hearing screening cause long-lasting parental concerns. METHODS: A general population of parents whose children had participated in the universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) programme were examined. Parents filled out a questionnaire 6 months after UNHS. Outcomes were compared for all parents whose child tested positive or inconclusive in at least one of three tests but afterwards proved not to have hearing impairment (cases, n = 154) and a random sample of parents whose child passed the first test (controls, n = 288). Parental anxiety as measured with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), attitude towards the child (child health rating and experienced problems) and sensitivity to hearing problems were measured. RESULTS: Median STAI score was equal for cases and controls. Parental attitudes toward the child also did not differ. The difference in the proportion of parents who worried about their child's hearing was statistically significant between cases and controls (p = 0.001) and varied with the number of screens; 4% of controls were worried about the child's hearing, as compared to 10% of cases whose children were tested twice, and 15% of cases whose children were tested three times. CONCLUSIONS: False-positive UNHS test results do not cause long-term general parental anxiety. However, 6 months after screening, a considerable proportion of parents continued to experience hearing-specific worries regarding their child.
