The hearing profile among learners in schools in the Western Cape, South Africa

North-Matthiassen, C.; Singh, Shajila

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.09.012

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A higher prevalence rate would therefore be expected in the current study sample compared to those from developed countries if the same intensity level of 20 dB HL was used. Furthermore, the prevalence obtained in this study are far less than the 7.9% [13] and the 5.6% [5] reported among previous African studies. A possible reason for the higher rate reported in these studies may be due to the fact that prevalence reported in these studies were based on referral rates and not on audiological diagnostic test findings.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…A possible reason for the higher rate reported in these studies may be due to the fact that prevalence reported in these studies were based on referral rates and not on audiological diagnostic test findings. Based purely on referral rates, the current study had a prevalence of 5.6% similar to those previously reported [10], [11] and [13].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Higher prevalence rates were reported in KwaZulu-Natal with 13% of black children and 14.3% for Indian children presenting with a sensorineural hearing loss [12]. The most recent study conducted in the Western Cape indicated a referral rate of 7.9% [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although prevalence data have been previously reported [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13], the method of determining a hearing loss varied across the studies, with most basing it on screening outcome [9], [10] and [12] as opposed to a confirmed hearing loss with diagnostic audiometry. Furthermore, the screening protocol utilized in these studies varied in terms of the frequencies and screening levels employed for pass/refer criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, van Rooy [10] used a pass/refer criteria of 25 dB HL or 30 dB HL, depending on the level of the background noise in the test environment. North-Matthiassen, Singh [13] and van Rooy [10] included 0.5 kHz in the screening protocol, which resulted in an increased referral rate since 0.5 kHz is more sensitive to noise and middle ear pathologies. In addition, many of these studies [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] were conducted primarily on children from rural areas whose ages varied between preschool to school-going age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Hearing loss in urban South African school children (grade 1 to 3)

Mahomed-Asmail

Swanepoel

Eikelboom

2016

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Hearing loss in urban South African school children (grade 1 to 3)

Mahomed-Asmail

Swanepoel

Eikelboom

2016

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes of an Early Childhood Hearing Screening Program in a Low-Income Setting

Brodie

David

Kriss

et al. 2022

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceEarly identification of childhood hearing loss through newborn hearing screening mitigates permanent speech, language, and developmental delays, but many children are lost to follow-up or develop postnatal hearing loss. Early childhood hearing screening programs may help identify these children, but evidence on their outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo assess outcomes from a low-income, preschool-based hearing screening program and risk factors for hearing loss in this population.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective cohort study of 6820 children aged 2 to 6 years from urban, low-income public preschools who received hearing screening from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019, was performed using San Francisco Department of Public Health records. A multivariate logistic regression analyzed risk factors for hearing loss. Data analysis was conducted from January 14, 2020, to April 20, 2021.ExposuresAnnual single-visit, 2-tiered screening was implemented with conditioned play pure-tone audiometry (CPA) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (OAEs).Main Outcomes and MeasuresRates of successful screening, referred screening, loss to follow-up, and hearing loss.ResultsOf 6820 children (age, 2-6 years) screened, 3425 (50.2%) were boys, 15% were White/non-Hispanic, and 48% had English as the primary home language. A total of 403 (5.9%) children were referred for full medical or audiologic evaluation after 2-tiered CPA/OAE screening. Only 24 children were unable to complete both CPA and OAE testing for a screening completion rate of 99.6%. After medical evaluation, 114 of 403 children (28.3%) passed hearing rescreening and 55 (13.6%) were lost to follow-up. The prevalence of conductive hearing loss was 2.9% (n = 195), and the prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss was 0.2% (n = 13). Primary language, race and ethnicity, and sex were not associated with rates of referral or hearing loss.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that preschool-based screening programs can be a useful method to identify early childhood hearing loss and that teacher concerns are associated with final diagnostic hearing status.

show abstract