Objectives: To assess the performance of newborn hearing screening (NHS) programmes, through selected quality measures and their relationship to protocol design. Design: NHS coverage, referral, follow-up and detection rates were aggregated. Referral rates were compared to age at screening step 1, number of steps, and test method: OAE or aABR. Study sample: A questionnaire on existing hearing screening was completed by experts from countries in Europe, plus Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. Results: Out of 47 countries or regions, NHS coverage rates were reported from 26, referral rates from 23, follow up from 12 and detection rates from 13. Median coverage rate for step 1 was 96%. Referral rate from step 1 was 6-22% where screening may be performed <24 h from birth, 2-15% for >24 h, and 4% for >72 h. Referral rates to diagnostic assessment averaged 2.1% after one to two steps using OAE only, 1.7% after two steps including aABR, and 0.8% after three to four steps including aABR. Median detection rate for bilateral permanent hearing impairment !40dB was 1 per 1000 infants. Conclusion: Referral rates were related to age, test method and number of screening steps. Quality measures were not available for many NHS programmes.

Objective: To investigate the variance in reported prevalence rates of permanent neonatal hearing impairment (HI) worldwide. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on reported prevalence rates of sensorineural and permanent conductive or mixed HI worse than 40 dB in neonates, detected as a result of a screening programme or audiometric study. Study sample: For meta-analysis, 35 articles were selected, 25 from high-income countries and 10 from middle-income countries according to the world bank classification system. Results: The prevalence rate of permanent uni-and bilateral HI worse than 40 dB in neonates varied from 1 to 6 per 1000, the overall prevalence was 2.21 per 1000 [1.71, 2.8]. In NICU populations the prevalence rate was higher with a larger fraction of bilateral cases. Although not significant, prevalence rates were slightly higher in Asia compared to Europe and the number of infants lost to follow-up appeared higher in countries with lower gross national income. Conclusion: Substantial variations exist in prevalence rates of neonatal permanent HI across countries and regions. There is a strong need for more data from low-income countries to identify demographic factors that account for this variability in reported prevalence rates. Reporting these data in a uniform way is advocated.

Objectives: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) varies regarding number and type of tests, location, age, professionals and funding. We compared the provision of existing screening programmes. Design: A questionnaire containing nine domains: demography, administration, existing screening, coverage, tests, diagnosis, treatment, cost and adverse effects, was presented to hearing screening experts. Responses were verified. Clusters were identified based on number of screening steps and use of OAE or aABR, either for all infants or for well and high-risk infants (dual-protocol). Study sample: Fifty-two experts completed the questionnaire sufficiently: 40 European countries, Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. Results: It took considerable effort to find experts for all countries with sufficient time and knowledge. Data essential for evaluation are often not collected. Infants are first screened in maternity wards in most countries. Human development index and health expenditure were high among countries with dual protocols, three screening steps, including aABR, and low among countries without NHS and countries using OAE for all infants. Nationwide implementation of NHS took 6 years, on average. Conclusion: The extent and complexity of NHS programmes are primarily related to health expenditure and HDI. Data collection should be improved to facilitate comparison of NHS programmes across borders.

Objective: To inventory provision and features of childhood hearing screening after the newborn period (CHS), primarily in Europe. Design: From each participating country or region, experts provided information through an extensive questionnaire: implementation year, age at screening, test method, pass criteria, screening location, screener profession, and quality indicators: coverage, referral, follow-up and detection rates, supplemented by literature sources. Study sample: Forty-two European countries or regions, plus Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India, and China. Results: CHS was performed universally with pure-tone audiometry screening (PTS) in 17 countries or regions, whereas non-universal CHS was performed in eight with PTS or whisper tests. All participating countries with universal PTS had newborn hearing screening. Coverage rate was provided from three countries, detection rate from one, and referral and follow-up rate from two. In four countries, universal PTS was performed at two ages. Earliest universal PTS was performed in a (pre)school setting by nurses (n ¼ 9, median age: 5 years, range: 3-7), in a healthcare setting by doctors and nurses (n ¼ 7, median age: 4.5 years, range: 4-7), or in both (n ¼ 1). Conclusions: Within universal CHS, PTS was mostly performed at 4-6 years by nurses. Insufficient collection of data and monitoring with quality indicators impedes evaluation of screening.

No abstract