Limitations and drawbacks of the hospital-based universal neonatal hearing screening program: First report from the Arabian Peninsula and insights.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of the current universal neonatal hearing screening program in a tertiary medical institution in Oman, identify its limitations and drawbacks, and explore their causative factors. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out to analyse the hearing screening of 12,743 live babies born between January 2016 and December 2018. Screen coverage, drop outs, follow up rate, and age at completion of screening, diagnosis, and intervention were analysed. The results were compared with the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) performance quality indices. Prospective questionnaire-based telephonic interviews were then conducted with the parents or caregivers of neonates with hearing loss. Finally, the causes of loss to follow up or delays in hearing screenings, diagnosis, and/or early intervention were studied. RESULTS: The true prevalence of hearing loss was 4.0 in 1000. The coverage of first-stage screening was 90% whereas the compliance with the second stage was 88.04%. 22.8% of the patients eventually obtained final diagnostic confirmation. The overall compliance with amplification was 30.2%. The completion ages of primary screening and final confirmation were 7.98 and 17.3 weeks respectively. The importance of hearing screening is well received by parents, but problems related to communication, delays in the appointment system, and inefficient follow up tracking were identified as the main limitations and drawbacks of the program. CONCLUSION: The coverage of the neonatal hearing screening program had not yet reached the required goal of 95%. The performance indicators also fell below the international benchmark. There is a need to address the identified causative factors. Effective communication and well-maintained tracking systems need to be implemented.

The Accuracy of IOS Device-based uHear as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study From the Middle East.

OBJECTIVES: To determine and explore the potential use of uHear as a screening test for determining hearing disability by evaluating its accuracy in a clinical setting and a soundproof booth when compared to the gold standard conventional audiometry. . METHODS: Seventy Sultan Qaboos University students above the age of 17 years who had normal hearing were recruited for the study. They underwent a hearing test using conventional audiometry in a soundproof room, a self-administered uHear evaluation in a side room resembling a clinic setting, and a self-administered uHear test in a soundproof booth. The mean pure tone average (PTA) of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz for all the three test modalities was calculated, compared, and analyzed statistically. . RESULTS: There were 36 male and 34 female students in the study. The PTA with conventional audiometry ranged from 1 to 21 dB across left and right ears. The PTA using uHear in the side room for the same participants was 25 dB in the right ear and 28 dB in the left ear (3-54 dB across all ears). The PTA for uHear in the soundproof booth was 18 dB and 17 dB (1-43 dB) in the right and left ears, respectively. Twenty-three percent of participants were reported to have a mild hearing impairment (PTA > 25 dB) using the soundproof uHear test, and this number was 64% for the same test in the side room. For the same group, only 3% of participants were reported to have a moderate hearing impairment (PTA > 40 dB) using the uHear test in a soundproof booth, and 13% in the side room. . CONCLUSION: uHear in any setting lacks specificity in the range of normal hearing and is highly unreliable in giving the exact hearing threshold in clinical settings. However, there is a potential for the use of uHear if it is used to rule out moderate hearing loss, even in a clinical setting, as exemplified by our study. This method needs standardization through further research.