Newborn Hearing Screening Speeds Diagnosis and Access to Intervention by 20–25 Months

Abstract

The age at achievement of benchmarks such as diagnosis, fitting of amplification, and enrollment in early intervention in children who were screened for hearing loss is on target with stated goals provided by the Academy of Pediatrics and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. In addition, children who are not screened for hearing loss continue to show dramatic delays in achievement of benchmarks by as much as 24 months. Evaluating achievement of benchmarks during the start-up period of NHS programs allowed a direct evaluation of ability of these screening programs to meet stated goals. This demonstrates, unequivocally, that the NHS process itself is responsible for improvements in age at diagnosis, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in intervention.

Potenciais evocados auditivos por frequência específica em lactentes com audição normal

“…Além disso, afirmativas anteriores 18 alertam que ao se utilizar apenas do PEATE com estímulo click ou mesmo o click associado ao PEATE-FE em frequências baixas, há o risco de se diagnosticar como perda auditiva leve às perdas auditivas em rampa.…”

Age of identification of hearing impairment in Mumbai—A trend analysis

“…Among developing countries Oman is the first country to implement nationwide UNHS [5]. Before the implementation of UNHS, studies have documented lot of variability in the age of identification and intervention; however, AOI has plummeted substantially after the implementation of UNHS [6,7,8]. A number of studies have been undertaken in different countries to see if a particular pattern emerges in terms of ages of suspicion, identification and intervention [9,10,11].…”

The impact of early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment on speech and language outcomes

“…The Wessex findings have been replicated in a number of programmes worldwide 31–38. For example, Sininger et al 31 capitalised on the staggered introduction of newborn screening programmes in California to compare the average ages of screened and non-screened children with bilateral PCHI at diagnosis, fitting of amplification, and enrolment in intervention.…”

“…For example, Sininger et al 31 capitalised on the staggered introduction of newborn screening programmes in California to compare the average ages of screened and non-screened children with bilateral PCHI at diagnosis, fitting of amplification, and enrolment in intervention. They found that screened children were significantly younger at diagnosis (median age 25 months lower), at fitting of hearing aids (24 months lower), and at enrolment in early intervention (20 months lower).…”