Feasibility of infant hearing screening from a developing country context

Kanji, Amisha; Khoza-Shangase, Katijah; Petrocchi-Bartal, Luisa; Harbinson, Shannon

doi:10.1080/21695717.2018.1519144

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current study findings indicated a higher specificity at the repeat hearing screening when compared to the initial hearing screening, for both OAE measures in isolation or in combination. These findings correlate with those in the larger study by Kanji (2016) which included the use of AABR technology.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

Kanji

Naudé

2021

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The current study aimed to compare the specificity of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in isolation and in combination, with varying pass/refer criteria for DPOAE technology. Method A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed. The current study sample comprised 91 of the initial 325 participants who returned for the repeat screening and diagnostic audiological assessment within a risk-based newborn hearing screening program. Results TEOAE screening had the highest specificity in comparison to DPOAE screening at the initial and repeat screening, irrespective of differences in DPOAE pass/refer criteria. DPOAE screening had a slightly higher specificity, with a three out of six rather than the four out of six frequency pass criteria. Conclusions Pass/refer criteria alone do not influence referral rates and specificity. Instead, consideration of other factors in combination with these criteria is important. More research is required in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of OAE screening technology using repeated-measures and diagnostic audiological evaluation as the gold standard.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

Kanji

Naudé

2021

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In India, there is no routine hearing screening test for children (Vaidyanath and Yathiraj, 2014;Ramkumar, 2017). Kanji et al (2018) showed that in South Africa, there are still many barriers to efficient infant hearing screening. Shinn et al (2019) reported that in rural areas of Kenya, ambient noise levels during hearing screening were so high that there were many false-positive referrals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of hearing screening of school-age children in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Skarżyński

Świerniak

Gos

et al. 2020

Prim Health Care Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To gauge the prevalence of hearing loss in school children in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and refer pupils with positive results for further diagnostic testing. Background: According to WHO data, hearing disorders are common in school-age children. Screening for hearing loss is an important preventative tool, helping to avoid further complications. Expenditure that supports early child development can reduce future outlay on health care and social services; it can eliminate disability problems, education deficits, and social maladaptation in later adult life. Methods: Pure-tone air-conduction hearing thresholds were obtained at 0.5–8 kHz. The results of the hearing screening examination were regarded as positive if pure-tone thresholds were higher than 20 dB HL in one or both ears at one or more of the test frequencies. Data were also obtained from follow-up visits of children who failed the initial screening. Findings: This study included 452 children aged 7–13 years old. Based on audiograms, screening showed that 123 (27.2%) of the children had hearing impairment. The study has important implications for clinical practice and health policy. There is a need for systematic monitoring of hearing status among children of this age, and parents and educators need to be made aware of the significance of hearing loss.

show abstract

“…This may include revising the step 1 protocol by switching from TEOAE to aABR for all infants, adding a rescreen before discharge (either with the same technology or with aABR after a failed OAE), or by moving step 1 screen to an outpatient setting. Moving step 1 to an outpatient setting can improve referral rates if inpatient screening is performed only hours after birth [65]; however, policymakers must also consider whether these factors could affect the sensitivity of the screening programme and whether coverage rates will be negatively affected by such a reorganisation [66].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group. Methods Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text. Results Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB. Conclusion Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

show abstract

Feasibility of infant hearing screening from a developing country context

Cited by 9 publications

References 19 publications

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

Results of hearing screening of school-age children in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About