Effectiveness of population-based newborn hearing screening in England: Ages of interventions and profile of cases
Uus K, Bamford JM
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Use our list of Related resources to find this item elsewhere.
OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness in routine practice of the first phase of a national population-based newborn hearing screening and follow-up program that seeks to identify infants with bilateral permanent hearing loss of 40-dB hearing loss.METHODS. The study was a part of the independent evaluation of the 23 first phase sites (annual birth population 120 000) of the national newborn hearing screening program in England. For each infant identified with the defined hearing loss, the measures of interest were degree and type of hearing loss, presence of risk factors, age of first audiologic assessment, age of identification of hearing loss, age of enrollment in an early support program, and age of hearing aid fitting. Data collection took place over the first 2 years of the program.RESULTS. Data were provided on 169 infants with permanent bilateral moderate or greater hearing loss identified through screening 169 487 infants. Fifty-four percent of all cases were from an “at-risk” population. Three fourths of these “at-risk” infants spent 48 hours in the NICU. For the whole sample, the median age at first audiologic assessment was 5 weeks; the median age of identification of the hearingloss and of enrollment in early support program was 10 weeks irrespective of the degree of hearing loss; and the median age at hearing aid fitting was 16 weeks. Infants with moderate hearing loss were fitted with hearing aids significantly later than those with severe and profound hearing loss.CONCLUSIONS. Properly implemented, a newborn hearing screening program based on whole populations and routine service provision can deliver satisfactory outcomes in terms of age of referral, identification, and intervention. The distribution of degree and type of hearing loss and proportion with risk factors was similar to that expected. The numbers identified were such as to suggest that very few cases were missed by the screening program.