scholarly journals Overview of newborn hearing screening programs in Brazilian maternity hospitals

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannalice Gottschalck Cavalcanti ◽  
Luciana Pimentel Fernandes de Melo ◽  
Laisa Flavia Soares Fernandes Buarque ◽  
Ricardo Oliveira Guerra
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Maternity Hospitals ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Evaluation of the effectiveness of newborn hearing screening program in Zahedan: A cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 2067-2071
Author(s):  
Gholam-Ali Dashti Khavidaki ◽  
Reza Gharibi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Maternity Hospitals ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Introduction: Hearing loss is one of the most common congenital disorders. The prevalence of this disorder in different communities has been reported between 3.5 to 9 percent, which can have adverse effects on language learning, communication, and education of children. Also, early diagnosis of this disorder in newborns is not possible without the use of hearing screening. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of newborn hearing screening programs in Zahedan. Method: In this cross-sectional observational study, all babies born in the maternity hospitals of Zahedan city (maternity hospitals of Nabi Akram, Imam Ali, and Social Security hospitals) in 2020, were examined. In order to conduct the study, TEOAE was initially performed for all neonates. Then, based on the results obtained in the ODA test and in case of unsatisfactory response, cases were referred for re-evaluation. Infants who were rejected again in the second stage were immediately subjected to the AABR test and if they failed in this test, they were also subjected to a diagnostic ABR test. Results: Based on our results, 7700 infants were first evaluated with the OAE test. Of these, 580 (8%) had no OAE response. Out of 580 infants rejected in the first stage, 76 infants were also rejected in the second stage; Among them, 8 infants were re-diagnosed with hearing impairments. Finally, out of 3 infants who were diagnosed with hearing loss, 1 (33%) had conductive hearing loss and 2 (67%) had sensorineural hearing loss. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, the implementation of a comprehensive neonatal hearing screening program is necessary for the timely and early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. Also, screening can improve the health of children and their personal, social, and educational development in the future. Keywords: Hearing screening, hearing loss, newborns, OAE, AABR

Comparison of universal newborn hearing screening programs in Illinois hospitals

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lia M. Ferro ◽  
Gail Tanner ◽  
Susan F. Erler ◽  
Kristine Erickson ◽  
Sumitrajit Dhar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing

scholarly journals Surdez Congénita ou Precocemente Adquirida: Do Rastreio ao Seguimento, um Retrato de Portugal

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 767
Author(s):  
Catarina Oliveira ◽  
Marta Machado ◽  
Raquel Zenha ◽  
Luísa Azevedo ◽  
Luísa Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Congenital Deafness ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Maternity Hospitals ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Introduction: Congenital deafness or early acquired deafness affects 1 to 3 out of 1000 newborns without risk factors and 20 to 40 out of 1000 newborns with risk factors. The universal newborn hearing screening enables its early identification. Children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness have a higher prevalence of other conditions, especially ophthalmologic and neurodevelopmental ones, and at least 30% to 40% have at least one associated comorbidity.Material and Methods: We carried out a cross-sectional, multicenter study in which 83% (n = 30) of the hospitals/maternity hospitals of the National Health Service participated.Results: All surveyed hospitals/maternity hospitals routinely performed universal newborn hearing screening to all newborns before discharge; 63% referred children with risk factors for hearing loss to Otorhinolaryngology. All children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness are referred to: Pediatrics in 23% hospitals/maternity hospitals. In 23 hospitals/maternity hospitals, all children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness are referred to: Speech Therapy in 44% hospitals/ maternity hospitals; Ophthalmology in 17% hospitals/maternity hospitals; National System of Early Intervention in Childhood in 30% hospitals/maternity hospitals; 22% of hospitals/maternity hospitals refer all children with congenital deafness/early acquired deafness, with no identified cause, to Clinical Genetics clinics. The number of diagnoses of deafness in the years 2014 and 2015 was 2.5 and 1.5 per 1000 newborns, respectively, in 15 hospitals/maternity hospitals.Discussion: Awareness of universal newborn hearing screening seems to be widely spread in the National Health Service. The number of children with SC / SPA, as well as the percentage of different types of deafness diagnosed, were identical to those found in other studies and shows its importance. The assessment / follow-up of these children by specialties other than the otolaryngology was heterogeneous in different health entities and revealed that not all children with risk factors for deafness follow up advised by existing standards.Conclusion: Results show that Portugal made an important path in the screening and follow-up of children with SC / SPA. It is important, with the ultimate aim of continually improving the care of these children, to reflect on the involvement of specialties other than otolaryngology, such as the National Early Childhood Intervention System in the follow-up of these children.

scholarly journals Mothers’ perspectives of newborn hearing screening programme

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Mercy E. Jatto ◽  
Segun A. Ogunkeyede ◽  
Adebolajo A. Adeyemo ◽  
Kazeem Adeagbo ◽  
Orinami Saiki
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Birth Asphyxia ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Willingness To Accept ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Newborn Children

Background: Newborn hearing screening programs identifies newborns with hearing loss. The early identification enables prompt intervention through hearing rehabilitation. Accurate knowledge of the program and its benefit will impact on the uptake of the program by the citizenry. We hypothesized that there is a gap in the knowledge of parents on hearing screening and rehabilitation measures in Nigeria.Aim: To determine the knowledge and perceptions of mothers of newborn children on hearing screening.Methods: A cross sectional observational study among mothers of newborn children at immunization clinics. Semi structured questionnaire on gestational duration, mode of delivery, birth asphyxia, knowledge on hearing loss and newborn hearing screening were administered.Results: Participants were 48 mothers with age range from 18 to 42 years. Awareness of newborn hearing screening was poor among the mothers; sources of information on newborn hearing screening were antenatal clinic, mass media and friends. The educational level of the participants had no association with awareness (p = 0.11), but the willingness to accept newborn hearing screening, was associated with socioeconomic status (p = 0.04) and the level of education (p = 0.02). The participants were not aware of factors responsible for hearing loss in childhood.Conclusion: There is inadequate knowledge about newborn hearing screening and risk factors for infant hearing loss among the mothers, though they demonstrate willingness to accept the newborn hearing screening. Funding: None declaredKeywords: Hearing loss, hearing screening, immunization, mother, newborn

scholarly journals Universal newborn hearing screening: the Belgian experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Lerut ◽  
B Van Overmeire ◽  
S Scholtissen ◽  
C Guérin ◽  
T Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Birth Cohort ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Automated Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brainstem Response

Abstract Issue Worldwide 466 million people suffer from hearing loss (HL), of whom 34 million children. Early detection of HL in newborns through screening and subsequent intervention significantly improve their developmental and psychosocial outcome. The WHA adopted a resolution on prevention of deafness and HL (2017), urging the member states 'to develop, implement and monitor screening programs for early identification of ear diseases'. Population based newborn hearing screening (PNHS) by automated otoacoustic emission (AOAE) and/or automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) is considered good practice. Description of the Problem Flanders (FL): PNHS by AABR at the age of 2-3 weeks (pass/refer), repeated in case of 'refer'. At 2x 'refer', referral to a tertiary hearing center. French speaking community (FSC): newborns with risk factors for congenital HL are immediately referred to ENT. Others undergo AOAE at day 2-3 (pass/refer with retest in case of 'refer'). At 2x 'refer', referral to ENT for AABR. German speaking community: no data available. Results Coverage rate: FL (birth cohort 2014): 96-98%. FSC (birth cohort 2016): 94.9% of newborns without risk factors had a 1st test. 8.7% of newborns with risk factors didn't have any test. Detection rate/1000 tested newborns FL: 2.1 newborns with congenital HL. FSC: 2.33 newborns with HL (0.30 perceptive/0.36 permanently conductive/0.75 temporary conductive/0.1 conductive NOS/0.06 mixed type/0.77 NOS). Lessons Belgium has at least 2 quality PNHS programs. Due to program differences (different tests/age of testing/registration/financing) in depth comparative analysis on their performance, outcome and cost effectiveness is currently lacking (future perspective). Key messages PNHS is common in high income countries, but is not yet integrated worldwide. In the light of the 2017 WHA resolution Belgium might inspire regions and countries starting up PNHS. An in depth comparative analysis of the current Belgian PNHS programs is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document