2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ages of suspicion, identification, amplification and intervention in children with hearing loss

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
23
2
14

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
23
2
14
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, while 40% of children were diagnosed before 6 months of age and 70% before 12 months of age, only 30% were using the hear- Min: minimum; max: maximum; SD: standard deviation; #: number ing device at 12 months of age and only 5% were using the cochlear implant at 24 months of age. Likewise, in a past study from Turkey, low level of parental knowledge and low socioeconomic status were considered to be responsible for the delay in identification of hearing loss and the increase in the time lapse between amplification and intervention [26] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, while 40% of children were diagnosed before 6 months of age and 70% before 12 months of age, only 30% were using the hear- Min: minimum; max: maximum; SD: standard deviation; #: number ing device at 12 months of age and only 5% were using the cochlear implant at 24 months of age. Likewise, in a past study from Turkey, low level of parental knowledge and low socioeconomic status were considered to be responsible for the delay in identification of hearing loss and the increase in the time lapse between amplification and intervention [26] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The age of cochlear implantation for the 4 newborns with bilateral profound SNHL ranged from 18 to 30 months, with a mean age of 24.5 months. Ozcebe et al [25] reported that the average ages of identification, hearing aid fitting, and intervention between the years 1999 and 2004 in Turkey were 19.4, 26.5, and 33.0 months, respectively. Spivak et al [26] revealed that the median age of diagnosis for the 192 newborns who were diagnosed with permanent hearing 58 [26] demonstrated, it is not easy to maintain all of the benchmarks recommended by JCIH.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spivak et al [26] revealed that the median age of diagnosis for the 192 newborns who were diagnosed with permanent hearing 58 [26] demonstrated, it is not easy to maintain all of the benchmarks recommended by JCIH. There are many factors, such as low degree of awareness in families and healthcare providers, low socioeconomic situation of families, and few number of diagnosis and intervention services, that might contribute to the delays in diagnosis and hearing aid fitting [25] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 İşitme kayıplı grupta tanı yaşı ve işitme cihazı önerme yaşı ortalamalarının sırasıyla 4,8 ay ve 5,4 ay olması, yenidoğan işitme taraması hedefleriyle büyük ölçüde uyumlu olduğunu gösterirken, eğitime başlama yaşı ortalamasının 8 ay olması, eğitime başlamada minimal düzeyde de olsa gecikmeyi göstermektedir. Ancak bununla birlikte, 1 yaş ön-cesinde özel eğitime başlama oranının %88 olması, bu çocukların kortikal algısal gelişim açısından kritik dönem içinde eğitime başladıkla-rını da göstermektedir.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…Ülkemizde yenidoğan işitme taraması uygulamasının 2004 yılı sonlarında başladığı göz önüne alındığında, Özcebe ve ark.nın çalışmalarında verilen tanı ve işitme cihazı kullanma yaşlarının, yenidoğan işitme taraması ile önemli ölçüde düştüğü açıkça görülmektedir. 17 Erken dönemde eğitime başlamada, yenidoğan işitme taramasının büyük rolünün yanı sıra, klinisyenin aileyi zamanında yönlendirmesi, ailenin eği-timin gerekliliğine inanması ve işitme kayıplı bebeğini/çocuğunu özel eğitime götürmesi gerekmektedir.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified