The impact of hearing loss

ORL ro ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-65
Author(s):  
Mădălina Georgescu ◽  
Violeta Necula ◽  
Sebastian Cozma

Hearing loss represents a frequently met sensorial handicap, which has a major and complex impact not only on the hearing-impaired person, but also on his family and society. The large number of hard-of-hearing persons justifies the acknowledgement of hearing loss as a public health issue, which oblige to appropriate health politics, to offer each hearing-impaired person health services like those in Europe. These can be obtained through: appropriate legislation for mandatory universal newborn hearing screening; national program for follow-up of hearing-impaired children up to school age; national register of hard-of-hearing persons; smooth access to rehabilitation methods; appropriate number of audiologists, trained for health services at European standards, trained through public programs of education in the field of audiology.  

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 54-65
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Rosenzweig

There are many ways for children with hearing loss to learn to communicate. Advances in universal newborn hearing screening and hearing technology have enabled many families to elect a listening and spoken language outcome for their children, regardless of degree of hearing loss. Auditory Verbal Therapy is a family-centered approach to developing listening and spoken language for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Professionals certified in Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) provide services under a guiding set of 10 principles, enumerated in this article with their attendant research bases and practical/clinical implications.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Fitzpatrick ◽  
Andrée Durieux-Smith ◽  
Alice Eriks-Brophy ◽  
Janet Olds ◽  
Robin Gaines

Objective: Universal newborn hearing screening has become standard practice in many countries. The primary goal of this study was to assess the impact of early identification of permanent childhood hearing loss on oral communication development. Setting: Participants were recruited from three clinical programmes in two cities in the province of Ontario, Canada. The study sample was born during two consecutive periods of newborn hearing screening. The first period, prior to 2002, was targeted on high-risk infants only, and the second, from 2002, included both high- and standard-risk infants (universal newborn hearing screening – UNHS). All children were enrolled in rehabilitation programmes focused on oral language development. Methods: In this multicentre observational study, 65 children under the age of five years with onset of hearing loss before six months of age, 26 identified through systematic newborn screening (14 through targeted screening and 12 through UNHS) and 39 without screening, were assessed with an extensive battery of child- and parent-administered speech and language measures. The degree of hearing loss ranged from mild to profound with 22 children in the mild, moderate and moderately severe categories and 43 in the severe and profound categories. Data are reported for the three-year study period. Results: The screened group of children was identified at a median age of 6.6 (interquartile range, 3.0–8.2) months and children referred from sources other than newborn screening were diagnosed at a median age of 16.5 (interquartile range, 10.2–29.0) months. Assessment of oral communication development showed no significant difference between the screened and unscreened groups. The communication outcomes for children identified before 12 months of age did not differ from those of later identified children. Conclusions: Systematic screening of newborn hearing results in earlier identification and intervention for children with permanent hearing loss. Superior language outcome following newborn screening was not demonstrable in the setting of this study.


Author(s):  
Nina Jakhelln Laugen

In some respects, hard-of-hearing children experience the same difficulties as deaf children, whereas other challenges might be easier or more difficult to handle for the hard-of-hearing child than it would be for the deaf child. Research has revealed great variability in the language, academic, and psychosocial outcomes of hard-of-hearing children. Universal newborn hearing screening enables early identification and intervention for this group, which traditionally has been diagnosed rather late; however, best practices regarding the scope and content of early intervention have not yet been sufficiently described for hard-of-hearing children. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge concerning psychosocial development in hard-of-hearing children. Risk and protective factors, and their implications for early intervention, are discussed with a special emphasis on preschoolers.


Author(s):  
Philippa Horn ◽  
Carlie Driscoll ◽  
Jane Fitzgibbons ◽  
Rachael Beswick

Purpose The current Joint Committee on Infant Hearing guidelines recommend that infants with syndromes or craniofacial abnormalities (CFAs) who pass the universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) undergo audiological assessment by 9 months of age. However, emerging research suggests that children with these risk factors are at increased risk of early hearing loss despite passing UNHS. To establish whether earlier diagnostic audiological assessment is warranted for all infants with a syndrome or CFA, regardless of screening outcome, this study compared audiological outcomes of those who passed UNHS and those who referred. Method A retrospective analysis was performed on infants with a syndrome or CFA born between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017 who participated in Queensland, Australia's state-wide UNHS program. Results Permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) yield was higher among infants who referred on newborn hearing screening (51.20%) than in those who passed. Nonetheless, 27.47% of infants who passed were subsequently diagnosed with hearing loss (4.45% PCHL, 23.02% transient conductive), but PCHL was generally milder in this cohort. After microtia/atresia, the most common PCHL etiologies were Trisomy 21, other syndromes, and cleft palate. Of the other syndromes, Pierre Robin sequence featured prominently among infants who passed the hearing screen and were subsequently diagnosed with PCHL, whereas there was a broader mix of other syndromes that caused PCHL in infants who referred on screening. Conclusion Children identified with a syndrome or CFA benefit from early diagnostic audiological assessment, regardless of their newborn hearing screening outcome.


2020 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Ikeda ◽  
Shigeyuki Minami

Hearing impaired persons are required to drive with hearing aids to supplement their hearing ability, however, there has not been sufficient discussion regarding the impact of the use of a hearing aid on driving a vehicle. In order to investigate the actual usage and driving conditions of using hearing aids while driving a vehicle, this paper uses a questionnaire to survey (1) how easy it is to drive when wearing hearing aids, and (2) how often hearing aids are not worn while driving. Concerning the ease of driving when wearing a hearing aid, it was suggested that people with congenital hearing loss were more likely to rely on visual information, and those with acquired hearing loss continue to use their experience of hearing. When the level of disability is high, it is difficult to drive when using the hearing aid, and when the disability level is low, it is easier to drive. Regarding the frequency of driving without wearing hearing aids, about 60 % of respondents had such an experience. Those who often drive without hearing aids had experienced headaches due to noise from wearing hearing aids compared to those who wear hearing aids at all times. Hearing aids are necessary assistive devices for hearing impaired persons to obtain hearing information, and to provide a safe driving environment. Therefore, this paper addresses issues to maintain a comfortable driving environment while wearing a hearing aid.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Doncarli ◽  
H Tillaut ◽  
V Goulet

Abstract Background The French newborn hearing screening programme set up in 2014 aims to identify affected children as early as possible to allow appropriate care. Our goal was to evaluate the implementation of this programme at the national level. Methods The programme consist in a screening using a test (T1) and a retest (T2) in the maternity hospital in all newborns. In some region, a delayed test (T3) is performed afterwards in children for whom it was not possible to confirm normal hearing. Children suspected of deafness subsequently enter the diagnosis phase. We defined evaluation indicators after stakeholders consultation. We developed a web application to collect aggregated data on live births. We estimated the rate of coverage, refusal, children suspected of hearing loss at the end of the screening phase and the prevalence of bilateral deafness. Results In 2015, one year after the initiation of the programme, the coverage rate was already very high (88%) and even more so in 2016 (96%). Parental acceptance was very good (refusal: 0.1%). By the end of 2016, 19 out 27 regions had added a T3. The rate of suspicion of bilateral hearing loss was decreased by using a T3 (1.4% vs 0.9%). Bilateral deafness rate, estimated after a 2-years follow up, was 1.3‰ although it was estimated only on 51.5% of suspected children for whom diagnosis data had been transmitted. Conclusions The objective of a 90% coverage set by the French ministry of health has been met after 2 years of operation of the program. T3 appears useful in relieving diagnostic structures from false positives. Our estimated prevalence of bilateral deafness could be more accurate if data collection was improved but is consistent with prevalence reported in North America. Key messages The universal newborn hearing screening program has been successfully set up in France in terms of coverage. Future work should focus on improving the collection of follow up data to better characterise diagnosed children.


2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alys Young ◽  
Helen Tattersall ◽  
Wendy McCracken ◽  
John Bamford

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document