A data collection system to audit post‐newborn hearing surveillance programme: problems and possibilities

Yoong, S. Y.; Spencer, Nick

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00854.x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 15 , 16 Committees, guidelines and studies that advocate data collection, also do so for the purpose of quality assurance. 3 , 17 , 18 Data may also be collected for the purpose of accountability to commissioners of screening programmes or other stakeholders. For these purposes, local or regional data collection suffices and for this purpose it is not necessary for the data to be publicly available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. Methods The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017–2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. Results The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. Conclusions Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These transportation costs were included in cost estimates for targeted screening, resulting in its being the least cost‐effective strategy. These barriers to access also have a negative effect on follow‐up after screening, which research shows correlates with lower income, fewer prenatal care visits, less education, and multiparous mothers 44 . In the proposed targeted hearing screening strategy, a low compliance rate for the recommended hearing screening could compromise the effectiveness of the program and reduce the likelihood of early intervention 45,46 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These barriers to access also have a negative effect on follow-up after screening, which research shows correlates with lower income, fewer prenatal care visits, less education, and multiparous mothers. 44 In the proposed targeted hearing screening strategy, a low compliance rate for the recommended hearing screening could compromise the effectiveness of the program and reduce the likelihood of early intervention. 45,46 The 2 most cost-effective strategies in this study were screening in the main RHC (CER = 0.06) and universal screening (CER = 0.09).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Otoacoustic Emissions in Rural Nicaragua: Cost Analysis and Implications for Newborn Hearing Screening

Wong

Espinoza

Alvarez

et al. 2017

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective (1) Determine the incidence and risk factors for congenital hearing loss. (2) Perform cost analysis of screening programs. Study Design Proportionally distributed cross-sectional survey. Setting Jinotega, Nicaragua. Subjects and Methods Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) were used to screen 640 infants <6 months of age from neonatal intensive care unit, institutional, and home birth settings. Data on 15 risk factors were analyzed. Cost of 4 implementation strategies was studied: universal screening, screening at the regional health center (RHC), targeted screening, and screening at the RHC plus targeted screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis over 10 years was based on disability-adjusted life year estimates, with the World Health Organization standard of cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) / gross domestic product (GDP) <3, with GDP set at $4884.15. Results Thirty-eight infants failed the initial OAE (5.94%). In terms of births, 325 (50.8%) were in the RHC, 69 (10.8%) in the neonatal intensive care unit, and 29 (4.5%) at home. Family history and birth defect were significant in univariate analysis; birth defect was significant in multivariate analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that OAE screening is cost-effective without treatment (CER/GDP = 0.06-2.00) and with treatment (CER/GDP = 0.58-2.52). Conclusions Our rate of OAE failures was comparable to those of developed countries and lower than hearing loss rates noted among Nicaraguan schoolchildren, suggesting acquired or progressive etiology in the latter. Birth defects and familial hearing loss correlated with OAE failure. OAE screening of infants is feasible and cost-effective in rural Nicaragua, although highly influenced by estimated hearing loss severity in identified infants and the high travel costs incurred in a targeted screening strategy.

show abstract

“…Desde la propuesta del JCIH, 2000 [10], ha habido un continuo debate respecto al uso de los FR en el seguimiento de la HPP [17,18,23,24], porque el registro de FR combinado con la monitorización pediátrica y parental se ha mostrado ineficaz en el diagnóstico de la HPP, dado el importante número de niños que desarrollan hipoacusia posnatal sin factores de riesgo [17,22,25], la falta de cooperación de los padres en transmitir los FR y en atender a las citas [18,26] y las dificultades que implica el seguimiento audiológico infantil [27]. Pero la presencia de estos inconvenientes no resta importancia a la necesidad de monitorizar la hipoacusia posnatal, aunque quizá se deban buscar otros procedimientos más eficaces.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Análisis de los factores de riesgo y del seguimiento de la hipoacusia de inicio tardío durante 25 años de cribado auditivo

Orejas

Ramírez-Salas

Viveros-Díez

et al. 2020

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: En 1972 el Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) de EEUU, propone la evaluación audiológica precoz de los niños que nacen con determinados “factores de riesgo” (FR), al comprobarse que asocian hipoacusia con mayor frecuencia. Tras hacerse realidad el cribado auditivo universal, se sigue indicando la conveniencia de un seguimiento de los recién nacidos (RN) con FR de hipoacusia permanente posnatal o de inicio tardío (HPP). Material y métodos: Tras aplicar durante 25 años un programa de cribado auditivo neonatal, en el Hospital Clínico Universitario (HCU) de Valladolid (España), hemos analizado la incidencia de los FR y el rendimiento obtenido con el seguimiento de los niños que presentaban FR de hipoacusia tardía al nacimiento. Resultados: De los 27.649 RN evaluados, detectamos un 0,25 por mil de HPP, que representa el 8% de las hipoacusias congénitas y el 0,65% de los RN con FR. En nuestro medio, los FR con mayor prevalencia de HPP son, los antecedentes familiares de hipoacusia y la presencia de malformaciones o síndromes que asocian hipoacusia. La HPP es fundamentalmente bilateral, de tipo neurosensorial y en un elevado porcentaje (23%) de grado leve. Discusión y Conclusiones: El seguimiento de los factores de riesgo propuestos por el JCIH como indicadores de HPP, no resulta ni eficaz ni económicamente rentable; sin embargo, dada la importancia de la HPP, consideramos que en el momento actual debería mantenerse el de aquellos FR que tengan una prevalencia elevada de hipoacusia y dado que, la mitad de las hipoacusias posnatales no asocian FR, añadir a este seguimiento, la realización de un estudio neonatal de pruebas genéticas de hipoacusia junto al análisis de la presencia de citomegalovirus.

show abstract

A data collection system to audit post‐newborn hearing surveillance programme: problems and possibilities

Abstract: Our study showed that it was achievable to collect and analyse data on childhood hearing loss in the context of routine surveillance. There were, however, limitations to analysis of data and findings have to be interpreted with this in mind.

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes

Otoacoustic Emissions in Rural Nicaragua: Cost Analysis and Implications for Newborn Hearing Screening

Análisis de los factores de riesgo y del seguimiento de la hipoacusia de inicio tardío durante 25 años de cribado auditivo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About