The effectiveness of the promotion of newborn hearing screening in Taiwan

Objective

Hearing is a critical ability for the development of a child's speech and language. Many studies in different countries have shown the universal newborn hearing screening and early intervention has greatly reduced the negative impact caused by congenital hearing loss. The first universal newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan took place in MacKay Memorial Hospital in 1998 and was subsequently endorsed by the government. The incidence of bilateral congenital hearing impairment in Taiwan is approximately 2.6 per 1000 live birth. The aim of this paper is to analyze the age of diagnosis, hearing aid fitting, and intervention of congenitally hearing impaired children with and without hearing screening after public awareness and government endorsement of newborn hearing screening.

Materials and methods

There were 263 hearing impaired children participated in this study, receiving their auditory habilitation therapy at Children's Hearing Foundation from 2006 to 2010. 114 of those children went through newborn hearing screening and 149 without it. The age of diagnosis, hearing aid fitting, and auditory intervention were compared between these two groups. The age of diagnosis and intervention of congenitally hearing impaired children among different years were analyzed too.

Results

The average age of diagnosis was 8.7 months, the age of hearing aid fitting was 12.4 months and age of auditory intervention was 18.8 months for the group of hearing impaired children with newborn hearing screening. For hearing impaired children without newborn screening, their average age of diagnosis was 27.5 months; age of hearing aid fitting was 31.3 months and age of auditory intervention was 40.5 months. There were significant differences in the age of diagnosis, hearing aid fitting and auditory intervention between congenitally hearing impaired children with and without hearing screening.

Conclusions

This research indicates that newborn hearing screening facilitates early identification, diagnosis and intervention of congenitally hearing impaired children in Taiwan. The age of identification, diagnosis and intervention of congenital hearing impaired children has also been reduced gradually over the years after government endorsement of newborn hearing screening in Taiwan.     

Predictive value of hearing assessment by the auditory brainstem response following universal newborn hearing screening

Abstract

Objective: This study set out to determine the accuracy with which tone pip ABR and click ABR, carried out in babies referred from universal newborn hearing screening, is able to predict the hearing outcome as determined by follow-up hearing tests. Study sample: The cohort of babies studied were all babies referred for hearing assessment from the universal newborn hearing screen in Sheffield, UK for the period January 2002 to September 2007, who were found to have a significant hearing impairment. Design: The results of hearing assessment following referral from the newborn hearing screen were collected together with those of follow-up tests carried out up to an age when behavioural testing had established ear- and frequency-specific thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz. Results: The standard deviation of the difference between the follow up and the tone pip ABR thresholds was 10.5 dB for the 4-kHz tone pip, 16.8 dB for the 1-kHz tone pip, and ranged between 21.7 and 24.7 dB for click ABR. Conclusions: The results of the study show that tone pip ABR following referral from newborn hearing screening has a similar accuracy to that reported in older subjects, and is a much better predictor compared to click ABR.     

Characteristics of children with unilateral hearing loss

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), examine deterioration in hearing, and explore amplification decisions. Design: Population-based data were collected prospectively from time of diagnosis. Serial audiograms and amplification details were retrospectively extracted from clinical charts to document the trajectory and management of hearing loss. Sample: The study included all children identified with UHL in one region of Canada over a 13-year period (2003–2015) after implementation of universal newborn hearing screening. Results: Of 537 children with permanent hearing loss, 20.1% (108) presented with UHL at diagnosis. They were identified at a median age of 13.9 months (IQR: 2.8, 49.0). Children with congenital loss were identified at 2.8 months (IQR: 2.0, 3.6) and made up 47.2% (n?=?51), reflecting that a substantial portion had late-onset, acquired or late-identified loss. A total of 42.4% (n?=?39) showed deterioration in hearing, including 16 (17.4%) who developed bilateral loss. By study end, 73.1% (79/108) of children had received amplification recommendations. Conclusions: Up to 20% of children with permanent HL are first diagnosed with UHL. About 40% are at risk for deterioration in hearing either in the impaired ear and/or in the normal hearing ear.     

Hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening for early detection of permanent congenital hearing loss in Lagos, Nigeria

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening programme for the early detection of permanent congenital or early-onset hearing loss (PCEHL) in Lagos, Nigeria. METHODS: A cross-sectional pilot study based on a two-stage universal newborn hearing screening by non-specialist health workers using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem-response (AABR) in an inner-city maternity hospital over a consecutive period of 40 weeks. The main outcome measures were the practicality of screening by non-specialist staff with minimal training, functionality of screening instruments in an inner-city environment, screening coverage, referral rate, return rate for diagnosis, yield of PCEHL and average age of PCEHL confirmation. RESULTS: Universal hearing screening of newborns by non-specialist staff without prior audiological experience is feasible in an inner-city environment in Lagos after a training period of two-weeks. Notwithstanding excessive ambient noise within and outside the wards, it was possible to identify a test site for TEOAE screening within the hospital. The screening coverage was 98.7% (1330/1347) of all eligible newborns and the mean age of screening was 2.6 days. Forty-four babies out of the 1274 who completed the two-stage screening were referred yielding a referral rate of 3.5%. Only 16% (7/44) of babies scheduled for diagnostic evaluation returned and all were confirmed with hearing loss resulting in an incidence of 5.5 (7/1274) per 1000 live births or a programme yield of 5.3 (7/1330) per 1000. Six infants had bilateral hearing loss and the degree was severe (> or =70 dB nHL) in three infants, moderate (40 dB nHL) in one infant and mild (<40 dB nHL) in two infants. The age at diagnosis ranged from 46 days to 360 days and only two infants were diagnosed within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based universal hearing screening of newborns before discharge is feasible in Nigeria. Non-specialist staff are valuable in achieving a satisfactory referral rate with a two-stage screening protocol. However, a more efficient tracking and follow-up system is needed to improve the return rate for diagnosis and age of confirmation of hearing loss.     

Newborn hearing screening in youth health care in the Netherlands: National results of implementation and follow-up

Abstract

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.     

Audiological findings in otospondylomegaepiphyseal dysplasia (OSMED) associated with a novel mutation in COL11A2

The aim of the study was to assess the audiological findings of a 4-year-old child with a homozygous COL11A2 mutation and to point out the role of continuous follow-ups in children with craniofacial syndromes after the newborn hearing screening. A 4-year-old boy with otospondylomegaepiphyseal dysplasia (OSMED) was followed up after birth for hearing loss. Transient Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAEs), Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs), Automated and Clinical Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR and ABR) measurements, Visual Reinforcement Audiometry, immitansmetric measurements and hearing threshold measurements were performed for audiological evaluation. The patient developed sensorineural hearing loss at 11 months of age while his hearing was normal at birth. Because of auditory-verbal training with hearing aids started at 20 months of age, he now has normal verbal communication with his peers. This study clearly demonstrates that hearing loss develops in infancy in patients with OSMED and underscores the importance of continued hearing screening beyond newborn period for early intervention of hearing impairment and communication problems.     

Newborn hearing screening at a community-based obstetric unit: Screening and diagnostic outcomes

ObjectivePostnatal visits at community-based midwife obstetric units (MOUs) have been proposed as an alternative primary healthcare screening platform in South Africa. This study evaluated the outcomes of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) screening conducted by a dedicated non-professional screener at a community-based MOU in the Western Cape, South Africa.MethodsUniversal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) at a community-based MOU was evaluated over a 16-month period. A dedicated non-professional screener was trained to follow a two-stage screening protocol targeting bilateral hearing loss. A two group comparative design was used alternating AABR (Maico MB11 BERAphone™⁾ and DPOAE (Bio-logic AuDX I) technology on a daily basis. Infants referring the initial screen received a follow-up appointment in two days’ time and were rescreened with the same technology used at their first screen. Those referring the second stage were booked for diagnostic assessments.Results7452 infants were screened including 47.9% (n = 3573) with DPOAE and 52.1% (n = 3879) with AABR technology. Mean age at first stage screen was 6.1 days. The initial bilateral referral rate was significantly lower for AABR (4.6%) compared to DPOAE (7.0%) and dropped to 0.3% and 0.7% respectively following the second stage screenings. First rescreen and initial diagnostic follow-up rates of 90% and 92.3% were obtained for the DPOAE group and 86.6% and 90% for the AABR group. Follow-up rates showed no significant difference between technology groups. Diagnostic assessment revealed a higher prevalence rate for bilateral SNHL among the AABR group (1/1000) compared to the DPOAE group (0.3/1000). Screening technology had no significant influence on daily screening capacity (23 AABR/day; 24 DPOAE/day).ConclusionsPostnatal visits at community-based MOUs create a useful platform for hearing screening and follow-up. AABR technology with negligible disposable costs provides opportunity for AABR screening to be utilised in community-based programmes. AABR screening offers lower initial referral rates and a higher true positive rate compared to DPOAE.     

Comparison between hearing screening-detected cases and sporadic cases of delayed-onset hearing loss in preschool-age children

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnosis and ages of intervention for cases of delayed-onset hearing loss identified sporadically or via a preschool hearing screening program. Design: Retrospective study with the comparative analysis of two groups of children. Study sample: Cases identified from screening were selected from 34 321 preschool children who underwent screening for delayed-onset hearing loss between October 2009 and May 2011. Sporadic cases of delayed-onset hearing loss were selected from pediatric clinical records. Cases from the first group were excluded from the latter to avoid duplication. Two groups were given the same questionnaire to record risk indicators, diagnosis, and age at intervention. Results: The average age of 26 children at the time of diagnosis in the screening group (52.81 ± 13.23 months) was significantly earlier than in the 33 cases identified in the sporadic group (62.03 ± 12.86 months; p < 0.05). The age at intervention of children with bilateral moderate to severe hearing loss in the screening group (50.40 ± 10.76 months) was also earlier than in the sporadic group (62.73 ± 13.77 months; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Improved rates of early diagnosis could therefore be achieved with hearing screening for preschool children with no significant symptoms of delayed-onset hearing loss.     

The longitudinal follow up of a universal neonatal hearing screen: The implications for confirming deafness in childhood

Abstract

Objective: To examine the implications of universal neonatal screening for confirming deafness in early childhood. Design: A cohort that had received a universal neonatal hearing screen was followed-up until school entry, and confirmation of deafness compared with that from parallel cohorts that had not received the screen. Study: Three 10-year cohorts were compared: a cohort of 35 668 enrolled for universal neonatal hearing screening, a historical cohort of 31 538 when neonatal screening was unavailable, and a cohort of 32 890 when targeted screening was in place. Results: Prevalence of deafness by school age was 3.65/1000 with a neonatal yield of 1.79/1000. The screen had been 89% sensitive to moderate and worse deafness, 79% to unilateral deafness, and 49% to mild impairments. The median age of confirmation had been reduced from 218 to 16 weeks, but for those not identified neonatally there had been no significant improvement in the age of confirmation over the previous 25 years. The yield from post-neonatal screens had been reduced from 1.8/1000 to 0.2/1000, and with a yield of 0.8/1000, reactive referral remained a more effective route to identification. Conclusions: Even with UNHS in place post-neonatal routes to identification need to be maintained and improvements investigated.     

Newborn hearing screening on infants at risk

Objectives

This article presents the results of newborn hearing screenings on infants at risk of hearing impairment at the French University Hospital of Besançon from 2001 to 2007.

Materials and methods

All newborns at risk of hearing impairment were tested according to the method recommended by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH): a two-step automated oto-acoustic emissions (AOAE) program, completed by an auditory brainstem response (ABR) for the positive diagnosis of hearing impairment. The screening started with AOAE on the third day of life, at the earliest. If one or both ears did not have AOAE, the infant was re-tested at which time, should the AOAE again be positive, ABR was performed. When the ABR threshold was 40 dB or more, the infant was referred to an audiologist specialized in infant deafness for diagnosis confirmation and management.

Results

Over the period, 1461 infants were screened, among whom 4.55% were diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing. Nearly 10% of the infants were lost to follow up. Forty-six children had a sensorineural hearing impairment, of which 34 were bilateral and were managed before the age of 6 months. The risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss were (in order of statistical significance): severe birth asphyxia; neurological disorder; syndromes known to be associated with hearing loss; TORCH (toxoplasmosis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, herpes) infections; family history of deafness; age at the time of screening; and the association of 2 or more risk factors. However, birth weight inferior to 1500 g and premature birth before the 34th week of pregnancy did not show a statistically significant influence on sensorineural hearing loss. Craniofacial anomalies (mostly cleft palate and ear aplasia) were a significant factor for conductive hearing loss.

Conclusion

Our selected hearing screening on infants at risk allowed 60 deaf children access to early management. However, too many children were lost to follow up; which revealed that better information regarding risk of hearing loss must be provided to parents and paramedics and universal newborn screening needs to be performed. The most important result of this study is that in a population of hearing impaired children, with an impairment incidence close to what is commonly reported, the association of several risk factors proves to be a significant additional risk factor for hearing impairment.     

Why parents refuse newborn hearing screening and default on follow-up rescreening—A South African perspective

Objectives

This study describes screen refusal and follow-up default characteristics together with caregiver reasons for screen refusal and follow-up default in two South African universal newborn hearing screening programs.

Methods

A retrospective record review of universal newborn hearing screening conducted at two hospitals (Hospital A n = 954 infants; Hospital B n = 2135) over a 31–33 month period. Otoacoustic emission screening was conducted with rescreen recommended within six weeks for a uni- or bilateral refer. Program efficacy was described according to coverage, referral and follow-up rates. A prospective telephonic interview with caregivers who declined the initial screen (n = 25) and who defaulted on follow-up (n = 25) constituted the next study component. Caregivers were randomly selected from the screening programs for a survey related to reasons for newborn hearing screening refusal and follow-up default.

Results

Screening coverage (89.3% Hospital A; 57.4% Hospital B), initial referral rates (11.6% Hospital A; 21.2% Hospital B) and follow-up return rates (56.1% Hospital A; 35.8% Hospital B) differed significantly between hospitals and were below benchmarks. The most frequent reasons for screen refusal were related to costs (72%), caregiver knowledge of newborn hearing screening (64%) and health care professional knowledge and team collaboration (16%). Almost all caregivers (96%) indicated that if costs had been included in the birthing package or covered by medical insurance they would have agreed to newborn hearing screening. Reasons for follow-up default were most commonly related to caregiver knowledge of newborn hearing screening (32%) and costs (28%). One in four caregivers (24%) defaulted on follow-up because they forgot to bring their infant for a rescreen. Only half of caregivers (48%) who defaulted on follow-up reported being aware of initial screen results while 60% reported being aware of the recommended follow-up rescreen.

Conclusion

Caregivers most commonly refused screening due to associated costs and mostly defaulted on follow-up due to an apparent lack of knowledge regarding initial screen outcome and recommendations made for follow-up. Including NHS as a mandated birthing service is essential if coverage is to be increased, while reducing follow-up defaults requires proactive reminders and improved communication with caregivers.     

Barriers to early cochlear implantation

Abstract

Objective: Identify variables associated with paediatric access to cochlear implants (CIs). Design: Part 1. Trends over time for age at CI surgery (N?=?802) and age at hearing aid (HA) fitting (n?=?487) were examined with regard to periods before, during, and after newborn hearing screening (NHS). Part 2. Demographic factors were explored for 417 children implanted under 3 years of age. Part 3. Pre-implant steps for the first 20 children to receive CIs under 12 months were examined. Results: Part 1. Age at HA fitting and CI surgery reduced over time, and were associated with NHS implementation. Part 2. For children implanted under 3 years, earlier age at HA fitting and higher family socio-economic status were associated with earlier CI. Progressive hearing loss was associated with later CIs. Children with a Connexin 26 diagnosis received CIs earlier than children with a premature / low birth weight history. Part 3. The longest pre-CI steps were Step 1: Birth to diagnosis/identification of hearing loss (mean 16.43 weeks), and Step 11: MRI scans to implant surgery (mean 15.05 weeks) for the first 20 infants with CIs under 12 months. Conclusion: NHS implementation was associated with reductions in age at device intervention in this cohort.     

Screening for delayed-onset hearing loss in preschool children who previously passed the newborn hearing screening

Objective

The goal of this study was to investigate the prevalence of delayed-onset hearing loss in preschool children who previously passed newborn hearing screening in Shanghai, China.

Methods

Between October 2009 and September 2010, 21,427 preschool children were enrolled from five areas of Shanghai, who had passed newborn hearing screening. Children were screened for delayed-onset hearing loss with pediatric audiometers. Children with positive results in initial and re-screening tests were assessed audiologically and for risk indicators according to the Year 2007 Statement of the American Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH).

Results

During the study period, 445 children (2.08%) were referred for audiologic assessment; 16 (0.75/1000, 95% CI 0.38-1.12) had permanent delayed-onset hearing loss. Of these, five (0.23/1000) had bilateral moderate hearing loss; seven (0.33/1000) had mild bilateral hearing loss; and four (0.19/1000) had unilateral moderate or mild hearing loss. JCIH risk indicators were established for six children (6/16, 37.5%), including parental concern regarding speech and language developmental delay, neonatal intensive care unit with assisted ventilation or hyperbilirubinemia, recurrent otitis media with effusion, craniofacial malformation, and family history (n = 1 for each). The remaining ten (62.5%) had no related risk factors.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of preschool children have undiagnosed delayed-onset hearing loss. Hearing screening in preschool is recommended for an early detection.     

Comparison of two hearing screening programs in the same population: Oto-acoustic emissions (OAE) screening in newborns and behavioral screening when infants

Objective

Hearing screening programs in infancy should identify hearing impairment as early as possible. The two common programs utilize either objective neonatal tests (oto-acoustic emissions (OAE) or automatic auditory brainstem responses (aABR)) or behavioral screening at 7-9 months of age. Most countries employ only one of these options. The uniqueness of this study is the comparison of both hearing screening programs on the same group of children.

Methods

The study was conducted on 1545 children born between the years 1999 and 2003 who were followed up in public well baby clinics in the Jerusalem district. The children were tested with transient oto-acoustic emissions (TEOAE) before discharge from the neonatal ward, and later, at the age of 7-9 months, underwent a behavioral hearing screening test in a public well baby clinic. The results of both hearing screening programs were compared.

Results

The compliance rates were 99.7% for the neonatal testing and 83% for the 7-9 months behavioral testing (p = 0.0001).The failure rate was 4-6% in both screening programs; failure of OAE testing was unilateral in 65% of newborns; at 7-9 months bilateral failure was more common (56%).There was an 11.2% disagreement (kappa coefficient 0.03) between the outcomes of both tests.In another group of 49 known hearing-impaired children, 27 who had undergone newborn screening were diagnosed before the age of behavioral testing. Twelve children had failed either both tests or the only test they underwent. In nine cases, the children had passed one of the hearing screening tests and had failed the other, and one child had passed both tests.

Conclusions

Newborn hearing screening has the advantages of objectivity, early identification, and higher compliance. The major advantage of the later behavioral test is identification of later onset or progressive hearing impairment as well as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Each screening test is testing different entities; hence they are complementary and not interchangeable or superfluous.We recommend a comprehensive two-step hearing screening plan (newborn and later behavioral) with close cooperation between the health care providers involved.     

The universal newborn hearing screening program of Taipei City

Objectives

To establish a hearing screening program with high coverage, low referral rate, high follow-up rate, and early intervention in Taipei City.

Methods

From September 2009 to December 2010, 85% delivery units in Taipei City, which includes 20 hospitals and 14 obstetrics clinics, were recruited into the screening program in two stages. A total of 15,930 babies were born in these participating hospitals and clinics during the program period. Among these neonates, 15,790 underwent hearing screening test with automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR). The screening was free of charge to the parents. The hearing screening examination was performed 24–36 h after birth. The same test was repeated between 36 and 60 h of age if the baby failed the first hearing test. The neonate was referred to the diagnostic hospitals for further investigations if he failed the second test.

Results

The screening coverage rate was 99.1% (15,790/15,930). The incidence of bilateral moderate to severe and unilateral hearing loss was 1.4 per 1000 (22/15,790) and 1.5 per 1000 (24/15,790), respectively. Four percent (626/15,790) of newborns failed to pass the initial screening test and 1.0% of newborns failed to pass the second screening test. Therefore, 1.0% newborns were referred for diagnostic assessments. The follow-up rate was 94.4% (151/160). Sixty-four percent (14/22) of babies with bilateral hearing loss completed the full diagnostic hearing tests within 3 months of birth.

Conclusions

The universal newborn hearing screening program is an adequate program for Taipei City with high coverage, low referral rate, and good follow-up rate. Screening fees covered by third parties, two-stage screening steps with AABR strategy, and the stringent monitoring system proved to be effective.

Level of evidence

2b, individual cohort study     

Knowledge and attitude of parents/caregivers towards hearing loss and screening in newborns – a systematic review

Objective: The parents/caregivers of a newborn play a pivotal role in the process of hearing screening and intervention. The decisions taken by them depend on their knowledge and attitude. The purpose of this study was to review the literature systematically on knowledge and attitude of parents/caregivers towards infant hearing loss and newborn hearing screening. Design: A systematic search was conducted using electronic databases for the periods from 1990 to March 2016. Two authors scrutinized the studies and extracted the data based on predetermined criteria. Study sample: Ten studies. Results: Ear discharge was correctly identified as a risk factor for hearing loss along with measles, drugs/medication, family history, congenital causes and noise exposure. The studies revealed mixed results for knowledge about newborn hearing screening. Overall, the parents/caregivers showed positive attitudes towards hearing screening and intervention options. However, due to heterogeneity in the studies, it’s hard to derive a conclusion. Conclusions: The present review sheds light on the common areas of misconception among parents/caregivers about risk factors of infant hearing loss and newborn hearing screening. The review also draws attention to the need to have more studies exploring this knowledge and attitude of parents/caregivers among diverse populations.     

Utility of the Vivosonic Integrity™ auditory brainstem response system as a hearing screening device for difficult-to-test children

Objective: Inability to complete a behavioral hearing screening is a challenge for children with developmental disorders or who are otherwise difficult to test, defined here as unable or unwilling to complete a behavioral screening. The study compared referral rates from screenings that used behavioral methods alone, with screenings that added a screen with the Vivosonic Integrity? auditory brainstem response (ABR) device. Design: Behavioral screening was performed first. Those children who failed were re-screened with the Vivosonic Integrity ABR device. Changes in referral and screening completion rates after the second screening were calculated and analysed. Study sample: The participant population (n = 43) consisted of children with diagnosed developmental disorders. Results: Adding the Vivosonic Integrity to the screening protocol significantly increased the proportion of children who completed the screening, from 57% after behavioral screening to 81% after behavioral and ABR screening. The addition of the ABR screen did not change that overall pass/refer rate, in part because four participants who did not complete the behavioral screen received a ‘Refer’ outcome on the ABR screen. Conclusions: The results indicate that the Vivosonic Integrity device could be a useful tool for hearing screening of children who are difficult to screen using behavioral procedures.     

Introduction to the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study: Background,design, sample characteristics

Abstract

Objective: This article describes the background and the design of the longitudinal outcomes of children with hearing impairment (LOCHI) study, and the characteristics of the study cohort. Design: Children born between 2002 and 2007 who were identified with hearing loss and received audiological intervention by 3 years of age in Australia enrolled in the study. Their demographic characteristics are described. Study sample: Four hundred and fifty-one children in New South Wales, Victoria, and Southern Queensland. Results: Data on age at first hearing-aid fitting for different degrees of hearing loss are reported together with demographic characteristics of the cohort. Conclusion: A unique environment in Australia where all children with varied access to universal newborn hearing screening received the same consistent hearing services from a national hearing service provider makes it possible to investigate the effects of access to early auditory intervention on children's outcomes at a population level.     

Audiological and genetics studies in high-risk infants

Hearing is one of the main ways with which one person can contact the external world; it plays a key role in their integration with society.AimThe objective of this study was to analyze the results of the hearing, medical and genetic evaluation of high-risk infants who failed the newborn hearing screening.Materials and MethodsClinical and experimental study. We assessed thirty-eight neonates, with ages between one and six months. The infants underwent the following procedures: medical interview; immittance testing; Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential; Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission and otorhinolaryngological evaluation. DNA extraction from the oral mucosa was performed for genetic studies using the protocol method adapted from the Human Genetics Lab of the CBMEG/UNICAMP.ResultsRegarding gender and presence of risk factors, significant statistically differences were not found in normal hearing infants and in those with hearing loss. Concerning gestational age, term infants were more affected by hearing loss. Hearing loss was identified in 58% of the sample, conduction hearing loss represented 31.5% (12/38) and neurossensory 28.9% of cases. There were none of the genetic mutations most commonly seen in cases with a genetic etiology.ConclusionHearing loss was identified in the majority of High-risk infants.