The HI HOPES data set of deaf children under the age of 6 in South Africa: maternal suspicion, age of identification and newborn hearing screening

Abstract

BackgroundIdentification of deafness before 3 months of age substantially improves the socio-linguistic and cognitive development of deaf children. Existing studies demonstrating the feasibility of newborn hearing screening in South Africa have used small samples unrepresentative of general population characteristics. This study establishes the characteristics of the largest data set of deaf infants and their families in South Africa on which there is baseline and longitudinal data (n = 532); explores its representativeness in terms of socio-demographic features and reports on access to and quality of newborn hearing screening within the sample. It examines specifically the relationship between age of maternal suspicion of childhood deafness and age of identification of deafness by cohort characteristics.MethodsSecondary analysis, using descriptive and inferential statistics, of a pre-existing longitudinal data set (n = 532) of deaf infants under 6 years of age, and their families, collected as routine monitoring of the HI HOPES (HH) early intervention programme.ResultsThe HH cohort is representative in terms of racial profile and private/public health care use but displays slightly higher level of maternal education and slightly lower socio-economic status than national comparators. 102 out of 532 infants had undergone newborn hearing screening, resulting in 29 true positives, 15 of whom would have met the criteria for targeted screening. Later onset deafness does not account for the 73 false negatives. The median age of maternal suspicion (n = 247) of infant deafness was 18 months; the median age of identification of 28 months. Age of identification was unrelated to private/public health care status. The median delay between age of suspicion and age of identification was significantly longer in the public sector (7 m; IQR 0–15 m) compared to the private sector (2 m; IQR 0–8.5 m) (p = 0.035). Age of suspicion was unrelated to level of maternal education. Earlier age of suspicion did not predict earlier identification.ConclusionTargeted screening as timely response to maternal suspicion offers a viable means to reduce substantially the age of identification of deafness in South Africa until implementation of newborn hearing screening on a population-wide basis can be justified.

Is hearing impairment associated with HIV? A systematic review of data from low‐ and middle‐income countries

“…Self‐report of hearing loss is likely to be insufficient, since the onset of hearing loss is usually slow. OAE screening is likely to be inappropriate for sub‐Saharan African setting, given low access to these screening facilities, as well as lower detection rates of severe hearing losses . Clinical screening using audiology is therefore recommended, as often happens in high‐income settings.…”

Communication and school readiness abilities of children with hearing impairment in South Africa: A retrospective review of early intervention preschool records

“…Children identified before the age of 12 months achieved age-appropriate scores for speech as well as receptive and expressive language abilities. However, late identification and intervention, as demonstrated in the current study, misses the crucial 2 years of the language development period that will enable these children to develop age-appropriate language abilities (Storbeck & Young, 2016). This finding once again highlights the need for comprehensive EHDI infrastructure.…”

Sedation for paediatric auditory electrophysiology in South Africa

“…18 The sampling method was convenience sampling of audiology records that were available from the programme.…”

“…18 Of these 532 children, 230 children (43%) in the sample had comprehensive diagnostic audiology reports included as part of their data. These diagnostic audiology reports were reviewed and 171 of the 230 children (74%) were identified as having an electrophysiology test completed as part of their diagnostic audiology evaluation.…”