NICU-only versus universal screening for newborn hearing loss: Population audit

Family-Perceived Barriers and Facilitators Toward a Tele-Audiology Infant Diagnostic Testing Approach in Victoria, Australia

Background: Universal newborn hearing screening programs allow for early identification of congenital hearing loss. However, some families experience difficulties accessing diagnostic audiology services following a refer screen result. Methods: This study aimed to assess the opinions of families who had experienced infant diagnostic audiology assessments regarding a telehealth option for these appointments within Victoria, Australia. Families who attended in-person infant diagnostic audiology appointments were sent a questionnaire exploring their experiences of the service and their opinion regarding a proposed telehealth option for infant diagnostic audiology (50 responses received). These results were also compared to those of families who were surveyed following testing in 2020, where the audiologist conducted the appointment remotely to comply with COVID-19-related social distancing recommendations at the time (10 responses received). Results: There were not significant differences between the duration or number of appointments, perceived understanding of results, or concerns regarding a tele-audiology model between families who experienced face-to-face and tele-audiology infant diagnostic audiology appointments. Opinions of infant diagnostic audiology appointments utilizing telehealth technology were largely positive, and minimal technological difficulties were identified. Conclusion: Overall positive attitudes of many families with infant diagnostic appointment experiences toward a tele-audiology option of this service suggest that offering a telehealth model of appointments may be an appropriate model to improve service access for families requiring infant diagnostic audiology in Victoria.

Referral rate and false-positive rates in a hearing screening program among high-risk newborns

AIM

More studies exploring referral rates and false-positive rates are needed to make hearing screening programs in newborns better and cost-effective. Our aim was to study the referral and false-positivity rates among high-risk newborns in our hearing screening program and to analyze the factors potentially associated with false-positive hearing screening test results.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was done among the newborns hospitalized at a university hospital from January 2009 to December 2014 that underwent hearing screening with a two-staged AABR screening protocol. Referral rates and false-positivity rates were calculated and possible risk factors for false-positivity were analyzed.

RESULTS

4512 newborns were screened for hearing loss in the neonatology department. The referral rate for the two-staged AABR-only screening was 3.8% with false-positivity being 2.9%. Our study showed that the higher the birthweight or gestational age of the newborn, the lower the odds of the hearing screening results being false-positive, and the higher the chronological age of the infant at the time of screening, the higher the odds of the results being false-positive. Our study did not show a clear association between the mode of delivery or gender and false-positivity.

CONCLUSION

Among high-risk infants, prematurity and low-birthweight increased the rate of false-positivity in the hearing screening, and the chronological age at the time of the test seems to be significantly associated with false-positivity.

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.

METHODS

Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.

CONCLUSION

Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

Assessing Loss to Follow-up After Newborn Hearing Screening in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Sociodemographic Factors That Affect Completion of Initial Audiological Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients are at high risk for congenital hearing loss. Previous studies have found sociodemographic factors associated with loss to follow-up for newborn hearing screening, but none have specifically studied the NICU population. Our objective is to determine if demographics and socioeconomic status is associated with loss to follow-up in a newborn population with extended NICU stay.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 443 NICU infants with extended NICU stay utilizing data extracted from infant and maternal medical records at an urban safety-net hospital.

RESULTS

Younger maternal age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.95, confidence interval [CI] 0.91 to 0.99), higher gravidity (adjusted OR 1.39, CI 1.12 to 1.72), and former smoking status (adjusted OR 2.57, CI 1.07-6.18) were identified as independent predictors of loss to follow-up for NHS after conducting a multivariable logistic regression. Demographic and socioeconomic variables, such as sex, parity, birth weight, mode of birth, highest level of maternal education, maternal race/ethnicity, zip code metrics, and maternal language were not found to be associated with loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Maternal age, gravidity, and smoking status are risk factors for loss to follow-up for NHS in newborns with extended NICU stay, a group at high risk for hearing loss. Our findings demonstrate that socioeconomic and demographic factors for loss to follow-up in the extended-stay NICU population are distinct from the well-baby population. Further investigation of these patients will allow prioritization of limited resources to subgroups within the extended-stay NICU population at risk for loss to follow-up for newborn hearing screening.

Comparison of newborn hearing screening results between well babies and neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit for more than 5 days: Analysis based on the national database in Korea for 9 years

Objective

The purpose of this cohort study is to compare newborn hearing screening (NHS) results between healthy newborns and neonates who were admitted to the neonate intensive care unit (NICU) for more than 5 days based on the national database for 9 years. Ultimately, we’ve tried to analyze the associated factors necessary to manage the national NHS program according to the group, which would help to establish policy to effectively detect and support hearing impaired children and which would help to control qualities.

Methods

The Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) introduced a nationwide coupon-mediated program for the low-income class since 2009. The coupon consisted of two parts, the screening part and the confirming parts with the same unique number, and the MHW supported the cost of one screening test and one diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) test for infants who did not pass from the screening test. We have analyzed the screening test performing rate, the referral rate according to the screening methods or institutions, the prevalence of hearing loss, and the average age of hearing loss diagnosis. Hearing loss was defined as any hearing impairment either unilateral or bilateral with the hearing threshold ≥ 40 dB nHL on the diagnostic ABR test, irrespective of its etiology.

Results

A total of 524,371 newborns were enrolled in the study, and 506,634 (96.6%) neonates were in the “well-baby group (WBG)”, while 17,737 (3.4%) were in the “high-risk group (HRG)”. The referral rate of the screening test was 1.5% in average, 1.3% in the WBG, and 7.5% in the HRG. The referral rates varied according to the screening methods and screening institutions. The adjusted prevalence of HL was 5.6/1,000 in average, 4.6/1,000 in the WBC, and 28.8/1,000 in the HRG. The screening tests were performed 4.3 ± 6.7 days after birth and the diagnostic tests were done 62.7 ± 37.5 days after birth in WBG. In HRG, dates were 17.7 ± 19.3 days and 97.6 ± 51.4 days, respectively.

Conclusions

The prevalence of hearing loss in infants who were hospitalized in NICU for more than 5 days was about seven times higher than that in healthy newborns. However, different referral rates were noted depending on both institutions and the screening methods. These differences need to be addressed in order to improve our program and ensure that all neonates with hearing loss, especially neonates with high risk factor, are detected and appropriately referred for the treatment.

Population-based cross-sectional study to assess newborn hearing screening program in central Germany

OBJECTIVES

Early diagnosis of congenital hearing loss is fundamental to minimize the negative consequences on the speech development. To lower the age at diagnosis and at intervention in hearing impaired children, not only universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) but also tracking is considered essential. The aim of the study was to evaluate the first six years after implementation of the population based newborn hearing screening program in Saxony-Anhalt, one German Federal State.

METHODS

The cross-sectional cohort study consisted of three cohort samples. Overall 102,301 infants born between January 2010 and December 2015 were included. NHS protocol was developed as dual target group protocol with two sub-protocols. The screening technique included Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE) and Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR) test. Newborns were assigned to the sub-protocols according to their audiological risk factors. Additionally, to evaluate the quality of NHS and tracking (false-negative screening) we were analysing data from a cohort of hearing impaired children diagnosed up to the age of three years. We calculated quality indicators and compared them with international guidelines.

RESULTS

101,102 (98.8%) infants were screened. The prevalence of bilateral neonatal hearing loss was 2.32 per 1000 newborns. The median age was two days at first screening, three month at diagnostic testing, and four month at intervention onset. 2.6% infants were lost to follow-up. 56.3% had a final diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The sensitivity of 0.85 (KI 95%: 0.76–0.91) and a specificity of 0.84 (KI 95%: 0.84–0.85) was calculated for the NHS program.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of benchmarks and outcomes of NHS demonstrated that the program reaches its main goal to identify the hearing impaired newborns in a timely manner.

Neonatal hearing screening in remote areas of China: a comparison between rural and urban populations

Objectives Universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) started late in some underdeveloped areas in China, with relatively scarce screening resources and a wide regional distribution. This study aimed to compare the screening performance between rural and urban populations, and to examine the characteristics and problems of UNHS in underdeveloped regions in China. Methods A two-step hearing screening program was used in neonates born in Liuzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital and in patients who were born in other hospitals, but admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. This program involved distortion product otoacoustic emission and automated auditory brainstem response. Characteristics of each newborn, as well as the screening outcomes and performance were compared between rural and urban populations. Results A total of 19,098 newborns were screened with a referral rate of 17.9% at the first step. Sixty-three (0.33%) newborns had hearing loss. The prevalence of permanent hearing loss was 2.25‰. The average screening age was significantly older in the rural population than in the urban population in the first ( P < 0.01) and second steps of screening ( P < 0.05). The rural population had a higher referral rate in both steps than the urban population ( P < 0.01). The follow-up rate was much lower in the rural population than in the urban population ( P < 0.05), but dramatically increased in 2014 compared with the previous 2 years. Conclusions A low follow-up rate is a critical issue when carrying out UNHS in developing countries, such as China, especially for rural populations. The government should establish more hearing referral centres to increase service coverage and supply financial assistance for low-income populations.

Follow-up in newborn hearing screening - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The quality and efficiency of newborn hearing screening programs (NHS) rely heavily on appropriate follow-up. The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing recommends a follow-up rate of more than 95% of infants who fail the initial hearing screening. However, a 70% benchmark is considered to be more feasible. This high loss to follow-up (LTF) rate acts as a threat to the overall success of NHS programs. The objective of the study was to identify and examine the reported rates of LTF, attributed reasons for LTF and strategies undertaken to reduce LTF.

METHODS

Using a systematic search, articles published between 2005 to December 2015 were identified from PubMed/Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library. To be included in the review, the study should be exploring the loss to follow-up or drop-out rate in newborn hearing screening programs and be published in an indexed peer-reviewed journal in the English language. The main outcome measures were overall rate of LTF, factors leading to LTF and measures adopted to overcome LTF.

RESULTS

53 articles were short-listed for data extraction. Out of these, 27 were single-centre studies, 19 were multi-centre, 3 compared multiple databases, and 4 used survey-based methods. Overall LTF rates of 20% in single-centre and 21% in multiple-centre studies were observed. Educational disparity and lack of adequate knowledge among parents were associated with LTF. The most commonly used strategy to overcome LTF suggested by studies was the use of an adequate data management system.

CONCLUSION

This review is a novel attempt to explore the LTF among NHS studies, reasons for LTF and strategies to reduce LTF. This review can act as a basis for planning and execution of effective NHS programs.

Population Outcomes of Three Approaches to Detection of Congenital Hearing Loss

BACKGROUND

Universal newborn hearing screening was implemented worldwide largely on modeled, not measured, long-term benefits. Comparative quantification of population benefits would justify its high cost.

METHODS

Natural experiment comparing 3 population approaches to detecting bilateral congenital hearing loss (>25 dB, better ear) in Australian states with similar demographics and services: (1) universal newborn hearing screening, New South Wales 2003-2005, n = 69; (2) Risk factor screening (neonatal intensive care screening + universal risk factor referral), Victoria 2003-2005, n = 65; and (3) largely opportunistic detection, Victoria 1991-1993, n = 86. Children in (1) and (2) were followed at age 5 to 6 years and in (3) at 7 to 8 years. Outcomes were compared between states using adjusted linear regression.

RESULTS

Children were diagnosed younger with universal than risk factor screening (adjusted mean difference -8.0 months, 95% confidence interval -12.3 to -3.7). For children without intellectual disability, moving from opportunistic to risk factor to universal screening incrementally improved age of diagnosis (22.5 vs 16.2 vs 8.1 months, P < .001), receptive (81.8 vs 83.0 vs 88.9, P = .05) and expressive (74.9 vs 80.7 vs 89.3, P < .001) language and receptive vocabulary (79.4 vs 83.8 vs 91.5, P < .001); these nonetheless remained well short of cognition (mean 103.4, SD 15.2). Behavior and health-related quality of life were unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

With new randomized trials unlikely, this may represent the most definitive population-based evidence supporting universal newborn hearing screening. Although outperforming risk factor screening, school entry language still lagged cognitive abilities by nearly a SD. Prompt intervention and efficacy research are needed for children to reach their potential.

Performance and characteristics of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England: The first seven years

Objective: To assess the performance of the universal newborn hearing screen in England. Design: Retrospective analysis of population screening records. Study sample: A total of 4 645 823 children born 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2013. Results: 97.5% of the eligible population complete screening by 4/5 weeks of age and 98.9% complete screening by three months of age. The refer rate for the 12/13 birth cohort is 2.6%. The percentage of screen positive (i.e. referred) babies commencing follow up by four weeks of age and six months of age is 82.5% and 95.8% respectively. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is around 1/1000. For bilateral PCHL in the 12/13 birth cohort the median age is nine days at screen completion, 30 days at entry into follow up, 49 days at confirmation, 50 days at referral to early intervention, and 82 days at hearing-aid fitting. Conclusion: The performance of the newborn hearing screening programme has improved continuously. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is about 1/1000 as expected. The age of identification and management is well within the first six months of life, although there remains scope for further improvement with respect to timely entry into follow up.

Contralateral ear occlusion for improving the reliability of otoacoustic emission screening tests

Newborn hearing screening is an established healthcare standard in many countries and testing is feasible using otoacoustic emission (OAE) recording. It is well documented that OAEs can be suppressed by acoustic stimulation of the ear contralateral to the test ear. In clinical otoacoustic emission testing carried out in a sound attenuating booth, ambient noise levels are low such that the efferent system is not activated. However in newborn hearing screening, OAEs are often recorded in hospital or clinic environments, where ambient noise levels can be 60–70 dB SPL. Thus, results in the test ear can be influenced by ambient noise stimulating the opposite ear. Surprisingly, in hearing screening protocols there are no recommendations for avoiding contralateral suppression, that is, protecting the opposite ear from noise by blocking the ear canal. In the present study we have compared transient evoked and distortion product OAEs measured with and without contralateral ear plugging, in environmental settings with ambient noise levels <25 dB SPL, 45 dB SPL, and 55 dB SPL. We found out that without contralateral ear occlusion, ambient noise levels above 55 dB SPL can significantly attenuate OAE signals. We strongly suggest contralateral ear occlusion in OAE based hearing screening in noisy environments.

Universal screening of newborns to detect hearing impairment--is it necessary?

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, neonatal hearing screening programs are still not universally available.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate the presence of hearing loss in all newborn babies delivered in our hospital during study period using the transient evoked otoactoustic emission as the primary screening tool followed by confirmation with brainstem evoked response audiometry before six months of age and to determine risk factors responsible for hearing loss.

DESIGN

A prospective study of nonrandomized cohort.

SETTING

Nursery, Postnatal ward and NICU of Tertiary care center.

PARTICIPANTS

500 neonates (439: not at risk; 61: at risk) from a total of 610 neonates born in between 2009 and 2010.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence of hearing impairment in the "at risk" and "no risk" group was compared, using proportion test.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Incidence of hearing loss in newborns both "at risk" and in "no risk" group, risk factors responsible for hearing loss, importance of universal newborn hearing screening.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of hearing impairment was 8 per 1000 screened. The incidence in "no risk" and "at risk" group was 2.27 per 1000 screened and 49.18 per 1000 screened respectively. Statistically significant difference in the incidence of hearing impairment between the two groups. (P<0.05; Proportion Test) was seen. Common risk factors identified were culture positive postnatal infections, birth asphyxia, low birth weight, and prematurity.

CONCLUSIONS

A high incidence of hearing impairment warrants the implementation of universal newborn hearing screening. Considering the economic limitations of our country we may employ screening of "at risk" groups initially.