Comparison of universal newborn hearing screening programs in Illinois hospitals

Ferro, Lia M.; Tanner, Gail; Erler, Susan F.; Erickson, Kristine; Dhar, Sumitrajit

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.10.004

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 41 have also explained that trained nursing staff and volunteers are able to conduct newborn hearing screening tests, which is consistent with the statement made by Hayes 60 that newborn hearing screening can be conducted by trained volunteers. Hayes 60 has, however, stipulated that an audiologist's supervision is required in this event. The notion of newborn hearing screening being conducted by non-audiological staff is supported by the study conducted by Ferro et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Evaluation of universal newborn hearing screening in South African primary care

Khoza-Shangase

Harbinson

2015

Afr. j. prim. health care fam. med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHC) is the gold standard toward early hearing detection and intervention, hence the importance of its deliberation within the South African context.Aim: To determine the feasibility of screening in low-risk neonates, using Otoacoustic Emissions (OAEs), within the Midwife Obstetric Unit (MOU) three-day assessment clinic at a Community Health Centre (CHC), at various test times following birth.Method: Within a quantitative, prospective design, 272 neonates were included. Case history interviews, otoscopic examinations and Distortion Product OAEs (DPOAEs) screening were conducted at two sessions (within six hours and approximately three days after birth). Data were analysed via descriptive statistics.Results: Based on current staffing profile and practice, efficient and comprehensive screening is not successful within hours of birth, but is more so at the MOU three-day assessment clinic. Significantly higher numbers of infants were screened at session 2, with significantly less false-positive results. At session 1, only 38.1% of the neonates were screened, as opposed to more than 100% at session 2. Session 1 yielded an 82.1% rate of false positive findings, a rate that not only has important implications for the emotional well-being of the parents; but also for resource-stricken environments where expenditure has to be accounted for carefully.Conclusion: Current findings highlight the importance of studying methodologies to ensure effective reach for hearing screening within the South African context. These findings argue for UNHS initiatives to include the MOU three-day assessment to ensure that a higher number of neonates are reached and confounding variables such as vernix have been eliminated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Evaluation of universal newborn hearing screening in South African primary care

Khoza-Shangase

Harbinson

2015

Afr. j. prim. health care fam. med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reports from the published literature concerning UNHS program costs can be helpful, even if they often are misleading as cost analyses are conducted in different ways, sometimes performed with different methods, or also based on different assumptions, based on premises which may be unique to that clinical reality, i.e., salary of the technician, cost of the test in relation to the hospital overhead, types of expenses which are considered important, etc. [44][45][46][47]. It should be also noted though that cost-estimations based on UNHS activities which span many years have a higher reliability for a number of factors: (1) The data are examined in larger time period excluding random oscillations of referral rates; (2) The UNHS know-how is incorporated into experience (no more learning curves) and expressed in better service with less technical errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The universal newborn hearing screening program at the University Hospital of Ferrara: Focus on costs and software solutions

Ciorba

Hatzopoulos

Busi

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although other more accurate methods such as automatic ABR (AABR) are implemented for screening [7] TEOAE has been widely accepted for primary auditory testing. As Ferro et al reports, AABR is the most common screening tool in the USA (80%), followed by DPOAE (32%) and TEOAE (5%), nevertheless, there are states where a 100% of child screening is performed with OAE [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%