Performance and characteristics of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England: The first seven years

Abstract

Objective: To assess the performance of the universal newborn hearing screen in England. Design: Retrospective analysis of population screening records. Study sample: A total of 4 645 823 children born 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2013. Results: 97.5% of the eligible population complete screening by 4/5 weeks of age and 98.9% complete screening by three months of age. The refer rate for the 12/13 birth cohort is 2.6%. The percentage of screen positive (i.e. referred) babies commencing follow up by four weeks of age and six months of age is 82.5% and 95.8% respectively. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is around 1/1000. For bilateral PCHL in the 12/13 birth cohort the median age is nine days at screen completion, 30 days at entry into follow up, 49 days at confirmation, 50 days at referral to early intervention, and 82 days at hearing-aid fitting. Conclusion: The performance of the newborn hearing screening programme has improved continuously. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is about 1/1000 as expected. The age of identification and management is well within the first six months of life, although there remains scope for further improvement with respect to timely entry into follow up.

Newborn hearing screening coverage and detection rates of hearing impairment across China from 2008-2016

“…Our results provide the most detailed insights to date into NHS coverage and detection rates across NHS coverage in some Chinese provinces reached nearly 100%, similar to the high coverage reported for the USA (98.0%) [9], UK (97.5%) [18], Poland (96.0%) [19] and parts of Italy where NHS has been incorporated into law (99.3%) [20]. Such high coverage in developed countries has been attributed to programs that subsidize the costs of NHS or even make it free [18], the existence of national NHS guidelines [21] and Ministry of Health regulations, government funding for NHS to maternal and child health institutions, and productive collaboration of neonatologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, audiologists, nurses, midwives and parents [19]. Several of these factors may also help explain the substantial increase in NHS coverage in China.…”

Prevalence of Hearing Loss Among a Representative Sample of Canadian Children and Adolescents, 3 to 19 Years of Age

“…The use of a >20 dB HL threshold cutpoint for 6- to 18-year olds, and ≥26 dB for 19-year olds in the present study is in accordance with the AAA guidelines and the ASHA pediatric audiologic screening guidelines which “pertain to infants and children age birth through 18 years” (ASHA 1997; AAA 2011); and was also adopted by the National Workshop on Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss (2005) and used in several large scale studies (Bess et al 1998; Wood et al 2015). Nonetheless, the use of these HL threshold cutpoints instead of the >15 dB HL threshold cutpoints used by Niskar et al (1998) and by Shargarodsky et al (2010), which would have allowed comparison to NHANES studies that examined HL prevalence among a national sample of U.S. children, represents a limitation of this study and may have resulted in an underestimate of HL prevalence.…”

“…As Niskar et al (1998) points out, prevalence estimates based on better ear measurements define children with unilateral HL as having normal-hearing acuity; therefore estimates using worse ear may be a more accurate indicator of the extent of the problem. The present study used a greater than 20 dB HL threshold for the worse ear to estimate HL prevalence, which is based on the American Academy of Audiology (AAA) Childhood Hearing Screening Guidelines and the ASHA Guidelines for Audiological Screening for age 5 to 18 years, and has been used in other large scale studies (ASHA 1997; Bess et al1998; AAA 2011; Wood et al 2015). …”

In Pursuit of Successful Hearing Screening: An Exploration of Factors Associated with Follow-Up Return Rate in a Risk-Based Newborn Hearing Screening Programme

“…2018; 28(4):e56047. grammes; in developed countries where follow up services are free at the point of use; that attendance rates in excess of 90% have been achieved for audiological follow up for a screen refer (30). The significant decrease in followup return rate for the six month diagnostic assessment in the current study raises questions about the feasibility of targeted/risk-based surveillance which has been recommended for the identification of late onset hearing loss in babies who pass NHS but present with risk factors for hearing loss (31).…”