Maternal concern about positive test results in universal newborn hearing screening

Outcomes of Universal Newborn Screening Programs: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review examined the outcomes (age of identification and intervention, developmental outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and adverse effects on parents) of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) for children with permanent congenital hearing loss (PCHL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were interrogated in March and April 2020 with further reports identified from article citations and unpublished literature. UNHS reports in English with comparisons of outcomes of infants who were not screened, and infants identified through other hearing screening programs.

RESULTS

30 eligible reports from 14 populations with 7,325,138 infants screened through UNHS from 1616 non-duplicate references were included. UNHS results in a lower age of identification, amplification, and the initiation of early intervention services and better language/literacy development. Better speech perception/production were shown in younger, but not in older, children with early identification after UNHS. No significant findings were found for behavior problems and quality of life. UNHS was found to be cost-effective in terms of savings to society. In addition, no significant parental harm was noted as a result of UNHS.

CONCLUSIONS

In highly developed countries, significantly better outcomes were found for children identified early through UNHS programs. Early language development predicts later literacy and language development.

Parent educational materials regarding the newborn hearing screening process

PURPOSE

Newborn hearing screening (NHS) procedures and implementation vary from state to state in the US. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the content and nature of information provided to parents about their infant's NHS across states to answer two questions: 1) what information is included in each state's parent information brochure? and 2) do the brochures include educational information requested by parents that may help reduce parental anxiety, improve satisfaction, and decrease the potential for misunderstandings?

METHOD

Each state's parent brochures and educational resources provided to parents were accessed via the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) website, categorized, and reviewed for content.

RESULTS

Results indicate that the information provided to parents varies considerably across states and many brochures do not contain important information that is desired by parents.

CONCLUSIONS

NHS procedures may be improved by providing standardized information regarding the process to parents in all states.

Índice de retorno ao reteste em um programa de triagem auditiva neonatal

OBJETIVO: investigar o nível de consciência dos pais em relação à importância da triagem auditiva neonatal, bem como verificar os motivos do não comparecimento ao retorno agendado após a primeira avaliação. MÉTODO: a casuística foi constituída por 31 mães e/ou responsáveis dos recém-nascidos da unidade neonatal do Hospital Universitário de Maringá, os quais não compareceram ao reteste agendado após a alta hospitalar. RESULTADOS: os motivos apresentados pelas mães e/ou responsáveis para o não comparecimento ao retorno agendado envolveram atitudes que puderam sinalizar pouca importância atribuída às questões relacionadas à audição e a Triagem Auditiva Neonatal, pois sugiram motivos irrelevantes como o esquecimento do retorno, mãe pensou que o bebê não deixaria ser submetido ao exame e a perda de horário para nova avaliação. Tal fato, provavelmente reflete a falta de conscientização por parte das mães dos recém-nascidos quanto à importância da Triagem Auditiva Neonatal. CONCLUSÃO: existe a necessidade de aumentar a conscientização geral em relação à Triagem Auditiva Neonatal, por parte dos familiares e dos profissionais que atuam diretamente com os recém-nascidos, os quais contribuirão para a agilidade do processo diagnóstico, garantindo melhores perspectiva ao futuro de crianças portadoras de deficiência auditiva.

Failure of hearing screening in high-risk neonates does not increase parental anxiety

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether a failure of neonatal hearing screening affected the anxiety level of parents of high-risk infants.

METHODS

Two hundred and eighty-eight parents of infants included in the neonatal hearing screening protocol of our Institution were tested with the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and with an open-question questionnaire investigating parents' attitude to hearing problems in their child, done at the time of audiological follow-up. 105 were parents of high-risk infants who had been discharged from neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and 183 of low-risk infants discharged from well-baby nursery.

RESULTS

No differences in anxiety levels were seen between parents of high-risk infants passing and failing neonatal hearing screening using homogeneous case-control pairs. Additionally, no differences in the level of anxiety were found between parents of high- and low-risk infants failing neonatal auditory screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure of neonatal auditory screening does not affect the anxiety levels of parents of high-risk infants at post discharge from NICU. This finding is a key factor to be considered when evaluating the costs and benefits of tests for universal neonatal hearing screening.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a national neonatal hearing screening program in China: conditions for the scale-up

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Health recommended scale-up of routine neonatal hearing screening - previously performed primarily only in select urban hospitals - throughout the entire country.

METHODS

A decision analytical model for a simulated population of all live births in china was developed to compare the costs and health effects of five mutually exclusive interventions: 1) universal screening using Otoacoustic Emission (OAE) and Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR); 2) universal OAE; 3) targeted OAE and AABR; 4) targeted OAE; and 5) no screening. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were calculated for health effects.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the cost-effectiveness and potential health outcomes, the optimal path for scale-up would be to start with targeted OAE and then expand to universal OAE and universal OAE plus AABR. Accessibility of screening, diagnosis, and intervention services significantly affect decision of the options.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, to achieve cost-effectiveness and best health outcomes of the NHS program, the accessibility of screening, diagnosis, and intervention services should be expanded to reach a larger population. The results are thus expected to be of particular benefit in terms of the 'rolling out' of the national plan.

Anxiety of the mothers with referred baby during Universal Newborn Hearing Screening

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the anxiety among mothers whom their babies have failed test results in the first stage of Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out on mothers whom their baby have positive test results in the first stage of Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program. Face to face interview was conducted to obtain data on sociodemographic profiles, knowledge about hearing loss and past medical history. Symptoms experienced by the mothers due to positive hearing test results and level of anxiety were measured by using the Malay translation Beck Anxiety Inventory questionnaire. These mothers were then given an appointment to come for the second screening six weeks after the first screening. The same questionnaire was given to them before the start of the second screening. SPSS version 11.5 was used for data entry and analysis. Wilcoxon signed Rank Test was used to compare the level of anxiety between the first and second screening.

RESULTS

From a total of 78 mothers who were participated during the first screening, 50 of them have completed the study at the second screening (response rate=64%). Fifty-two percent of them knew about the hearing screening before hand. Ninety-six percent of the mothers became alert about their child response towards sounds after they knew that their child had failed the first hearing screening. During the first screening, 74% of the mothers felt mild anxiety which was decreased to 68% before the mothers undergone the second screening. Moderate anxiety was felt by 10% of the mothers during both the first and second screening. There were 8% of the mothers having severe anxiety during the first screening but have reduced to half (4%) before the mothers undergone the second screening. The anxiety level was significantly less before the second screening with the median score of 5 (IQR: 13.0) compared to after the first screening (8, IQR=14.25); p=0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

There are considerable portion of the mothers of false-positive test result during Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program experienced unacceptable anxiety. This group of mothers needs to be identified and given a necessary help.

Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation

OBJECTIVE

This review is an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force on universal newborn hearing screening to detect moderate-to-severe permanent, bilateral congenital hearing loss. We focus on 3 key questions: (1) Among infants identified by universal screening who would not be identified by targeted screening, does initiating treatment before 6 months of age improve language and communication outcomes? (2) Compared with targeted screening, does universal screening increase the chance that treatment will be initiated by 6 months of age for infants at average risk or for those at high risk? (3) What are the adverse effects of screening and early treatment?

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched to identify articles published since the 2002 recommendation. Data from studies that met inclusion criteria were abstracted, and studies were rated for quality with predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

A good-quality retrospective study of children with hearing loss indicates that those who had early versus late confirmation and those who had undergone universal newborn screening versus none had better receptive language at 8 years of age but not better expressive language or speech. A good-quality nonrandomized trial of a large birth cohort indicates that infants identified with hearing loss through universal newborn screening have earlier referral, diagnosis, and treatment than those not screened. These findings are corroborated by multiple descriptive studies of ages of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Usual parental reactions to an initial nonpass on a hearing screen include worry, questioning, and distress that resolve for most parents. Cochlear implants have been associated with higher risks for bacterial meningitis in young children.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with hearing loss who had universal newborn hearing screening have better language outcomes at school age than those not screened. Infants identified with hearing loss through universal screening have significantly earlier referral, diagnosis, and treatment than those identified in other ways.

Early hearing screening: what is the best strategy?

OBJECTIVES

A discussion concerning the relevance of universal newborn hearing screening has been conducted in France since the end of the 1990s. As a contribution to the choice of strategy to be implemented, we evaluated and compared the results of this screening and its impact on the parent-infant relationship as a function of the time at which screening was performed: during the infant's stay in the maternity unit, in the first strategy (strategy 1), or 2 months after birth, in the second strategy (strategy 2).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Five thousand seven hundred and ninety infants participated in the study: 3202 were included in the first strategy and 2588 were included in the second strategy. Within this population, 143 mother-infant pairs were submitted to psychological assessment. We compared the number of infants screened, the number of first positive tests, the number of false-positive tests and the number of infants not reviewed after screening. Adverse effects on the parent-infant relationship were evaluated in terms of maternal anxiety and the quality of early interactions.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference in favor of newborn screening was demonstrated for the number of infants screened: 95.72% for the first strategy [95.0%; 96.4%], 64.18% for the second strategy [62.3%; 66.0%]; the number of first positive tests: 1.11% during newborn screening [0.7%; 1.5%], 3.13% in the second strategy [2.3%; 4.0%]; the number of false-positive tests: 0.29% in the first strategy [0.10%; 0.49%] and 2.65% in the second strategy [1.88%; 3.42%]; and the number of infants not reviewed after screening: 8.8% during newborn screening [0.0%; 18.4%] and 38.5% in the second strategy [25.2%; 51.7%]. Analysis of the results of the psychological assessment showed that screening per se did not have any impact on maternal anxiety or on the quality of early interactions, regardless of the screening strategy used. However, the result of the test had a significant impact. Announcement of a positive result increased maternal anxiety and induced a deterioration of the mother's psychological state which affected the quality of early interactions. As the number of positive results is significantly lower in newborn hearing screening, there are consequently fewer psychological side effects with this strategy than with the second strategy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that universal newborn hearing screening is the most efficient strategy.

Feasibility of neonatal hearing screening program with two-stage transient otoacoustic emissions in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of hearing loss in neonates and evaluate the feasibility of a two-stage Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission (TEOAE) screening test. Maternal concerns about hearing screening were also studied.

METHODS

Neonatal intensive care patients and well babies were screened using a two-stage TEOAE test, which was followed by an Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) test for those babies who failed the first test twice.

RESULTS

In total, 711 neonates were screened. At the end of the two TEOAE tests, the cumulative pass rate was 99.3% and false-positive rate was 0.3%. Five neonates (0.7%) were referred for the ABR test. Sensorineural hearing loss was found in three of them (0.4%). Of these three neonates, one was from the well baby nursery and two were from the NICU population. Families generally welcomed the screening program, with no refusals. Positive test results have not caused important maternal concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Congenital hearing impairment is a prevalent disease in Turkey. The two-stage TEOAE program is suitable for the neonatal hearing screening program. In general, hearing screening tests do not cause notable maternal concerns.

Infant hearing screening: stakeholder recommendations for parent-centered communication

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify what stakeholders considered best practices for parent-provider communication regarding newborn hearing screening and diagnosis. We used consensus data to develop educational materials for parents.

METHODS

We conducted 29 focus groups and 23 individual interviews between October 2003 and May 2004. Participants included (1) English- and Spanish-speaking parents of infants <18 months of age who had experience with hospital-based newborn hearing screening; (2) parents of children with hearing loss; (3) primary care providers who provide prenatal care or care for newborns; and (4) audiologists, audiology technicians, and hospital nurses.

RESULTS

Communication to parents about hospital-based newborn hearing screening was limited. Most parents first learned about the screening in the hospital, but all stakeholders thought a more opportune time for education was before the birth. For parents of infants who did not pass the newborn hearing screening, stakeholders recommended direct communication about the urgency of diagnostic testing. They also indicated that primary care providers needed current information regarding hearing screening, diagnostic testing, and early intervention. All stakeholders thought that a brief brochure for parents to take home would be helpful for hospital-based screening and, if necessary, subsequent diagnostic testing. Primary care providers requested basic, to-the-point information.

CONCLUSIONS

The most opportune time to begin discussion of newborn hearing screening is before the birth. Providers need up-to-date information on current standards of hearing screening, diagnosis, and intervention. User-friendly patient education materials, such as those we developed, could assist providers in educating parents.

Maternal views on infant hearing loss in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Parental support for infant hearing loss is essential for a successful infant screening programme. However, in developing countries where unfavourable customs and beliefs towards childhood disabilities have been reported, parental support towards infant screening is uncertain and there is presently no published evidence on the subject.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit the views of mothers and would-be mothers in order to ascertain their knowledge on infant hearing loss and their attitudes towards infant hearing screening.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire consisting of 15 questions was administered to 101 mothers (mean age 31.6+/-7.3 years, range: 21-55 years) attending two community hospitals in Lagos, Nigeria. The responses were evaluated by descriptive statistics, factor analysis of the principal components and multiple regression analysis. The reliability of the two main domains (knowledge and attitude) was tested for internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

RESULTS

Maternal knowledge was highest for measles (73%; mean score 2.54) and ear discharge (73%; mean score 2.51) but low for birth asphyxia (37%; mean score 1.90), traditional medicine (42%; mean score 2.03) and jaundice (47%; mean score 2.09) as causes of hearing loss. Attitude towards neonatal screening was positive in majority of mothers (92%; mean score 2.84) and there was a high acceptance of hearing aids as an early intervention option (84%; mean score 2.70). Five factors (eigenvalue>1) were extracted after principal component analysis with the attitude variables loading highly and exclusively on one factor. Age was the only demographic variable that was associated with a domain (knowledge) after multiple regression analysis. The component scales for the two domains were highly internally consistent (alpha coefficients of 0.84 and 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the concerns often expressed about parental support for infant hearing screening programmes in developing countries, this study suggests that current parental knowledge and attitude favour early detection and intervention of childhood hearing impairment.

[Universal newborn hearing screening in Cantabria (Spain): results of the first two years]

AIMS

We present the results of the first 2 years of universal newborn hearing screening in Cantabria.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a descriptive study of screening with two levels of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in 8,836 newborns, diagnostic confirmation with auditory brainstem response, and treatment.

RESULTS

The coverage of the first two levels of otoacoustic emissions was 98.4 % and 99.5 %. The incidence of risk factors was 3.08 %. A total of 6.7 % of those studied in the first stage were referred to the second, and 0.7 % of those studied in the second stage were referred to testing of auditory brainstem responses. Of the patents referred to the second stage, 97.6 % attended, and of those referred to the third stage 87.1 % attended. The positive predictive value after the second session of otoemissions was 7.9 %, and the false positive rate was 3.3 %. Sensorineural and bilateral hearing loss was diagnosed in 11 children, and permanent unilateral hypoacousia was diagnosed in one child, representing an incidence of 1.38/1,000 newborns. Sixty percent were diagnosed before the age of 3 months and 100 % before the age of 7 months. Fifty percent began treatment before the age of 6 months and 90 % before the age of 1 year. Of three cochlear implants indicated, two were implanted at 11 and 13 months. The cost was 1.3 3 per child screened and 867 3 for each case diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

All the objectives of the first and second stages of screening were achieved. The continuity index anticipated for the third stage (87.1 vs 95 %) and access to treatment at 6 months (50 % vs 100 %) were less satisfactory, although these results compare favorably with those of previously published studies.

Sensorineural hearing loss in children

During the past three to four decades, the incidence of acquired sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in children living in more developed countries has fallen, as a result of improved neonatal care and the widespread implementation of immunisation programmes. The overall decrease has been accompanied by a relative increase in the proportion of inherited forms of SNHL. The contribution made by one gene in particular, GJB2, to the genetic load of SNHL has strongly affected the assessment and care of children with hearing loss. These changes in the incidence of SNHL have not been seen in children living in less developed countries, where the prevalence of consanguinity is high in many areas, and both genetic and acquired forms of SNHL are more common, particularly among children who live in poverty. Focused genetic counselling and health education might lead to a decrease in the prevalence of inherited SNHL in these countries. Establishment of vaccination programmes for several vaccine-preventable infectious diseases would reduce rates of acquired SNHL. Although the primary purpose of such programmes is the prevention of serious and in many cases fatal infections, a secondary benefit would be a reduction in disease-related complications such as SNHL that cause permanent disability in survivors.

Neonatal hearing screening: to do or not to do

Over the last two decades there has been a great deal of discussion concerning hearing loss in infants and the most appropriate diagnostic strategies to identify these children so that early intervention can be provided. This article reviews the developments that have transpired to allow universal newborn hearing screening programs to become the standard of care throughout most of North America. The article also examines ongoing controversies in universal newborn hearing screening and future needs to enhance universal newborn hearing screening, with the ultimate goal being early intervention for children identified with hearing loss through these programs.

Universal newborn hearing screening: fine-tuning the process

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) is rapidly becoming the standard of care in hospitals across the country. The goals of Healthy People 2010 are to provide newborn hearing screening to all infants, ensure follow-up audiologic evaluations by 3 months of age, and provide smooth transition to early intervention by 6 months of age. Programs implemented in the 1990s are beginning to report data that will be useful to states new to screening. This article reviews recent trends, suggests appropriate screening protocols, and identifies areas for improvement in UNHS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies indicate the following: (1) screening programs can be cost-effective with low referral rates; (2) maternal stress is not necessarily a byproduct of screenings that end in referral; and (3) developmental outcomes for hearing-impaired infants born in screening hospitals are particularly encouraging. Areas for improvement include the following: (1) compliance in follow-up testing and (2) the establishment of a cohesive multidisciplinary team to manage the infant and provide support to the family.

SUMMARY

Hearing screening is only the first step in the care of a hearing-impaired infant. Programs need to ensure that families understand the necessity of follow-up testing without creating undue stress. The transition to early intervention should be seamless, with a cohesive team of health care professionals capable of providing medical, audiologic, communication, and educational management for the infant as well as emotional support for the family.

A model of two-stage newborn hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response

Our purpose was to evaluate a two-stage newborn hearing screening program using automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) before discharge and to describe our follow-up program. This study used 4085 infants born in the Seirei-Hamamatsu and Mikatahara General Hospitals during a 2-year period. The initial screening test was performed 2 or 3 days after birth at an intensity of 35 dBnHL. For the infants who were referred from this test, the re-screening test was performed 5 or 6 days after birth. Diagnostic work-up with auditory brainstem response (ABR), otoacoustic emissions (OAE), and a conditioned orientation reflex audiometry (COR) test were performed by the age of 3-6 months. The referral rate was 1.20% (49/4085 infants) in the first test and 0.71% (29/4085 infants) in the two-stage screening. The two-stage screening procedure was able to reduce the false-positive rate from 0.83 to 0.34%. The incidence of bilateral and unilateral congenital hearing loss diagnosed by ABR was 8/4085 (0.20%) infants and 7/4085 (0.17%) infants, respectively. One infant with congenital cytomegalovirus infection, who passed the two-stage AABR tests, was diagnosed with hearing loss 1 month after birth, using ABR. The two-stage measurement of AABR is effective and time efficient due to significant decreases in the referral rate and the false-positive rate.

Six month impact of false positives in an Australian infant hearing screening programme

AIMS

To assess short and longer term parent reported impacts of false positive referrals in the Victorian Infant Hearing Screening Program (VIHSP).

METHODS

Mailed retrospective case-control survey of infants consecutively referred to VIHSP between December 1998 and April 1999 for whom audiology did not confirm permanent hearing loss, comprising 137 infants screened with a neonatal risk factor questionnaire and 148 older infants screened with two consecutive behavioural (distraction) tests. The two control groups comprised non-referred screened infants matched by domicile, age, and gender. Main outcome measures were parent reported emotions experienced before and after child's audiology test, parent estimated impact of hearing loss, the Child Vulnerability Scale, audiology assessment satisfaction questionnaire, and questions relating to their child's hearing and language development.

RESULTS

Final sample: at risk cases (AR) 108 (79% response), at risk controls 64 (51%); distraction test cases (DT) 103 (70%), distraction test controls 53 (41%). Parents across all groups believed that hearing loss would have major effects on a child's language (91-96%), schooling (81-91%), and employment opportunities (67-75%). Before audiology, 71% (AR) and 72% (DT) of case parents were anxious/worried, falling to 4% and 15% afterwards. After the test 82% (AR) and 79% (DT) reported relief, but 19% and 18% continued to feel worried. Ongoing concerns about hearing, language, development, and general health were comparable for AR cases compared to controls, and for DT cases compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing screening tests are generally well received. Parents are realistic about the impact of childhood hearing loss and report a range of negative emotions when a false positive hearing screen requires referral. Although most are reassured by a normal test, a substantial number report continuing concern.

Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of hearing impairment may improve language outcomes and subsequent school and occupational performance of the deaf. Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), currently mandated by 32 states, can reduce the median age of identification of hearing impairment from 12 to 18 months to 6 months or less. However, because false-negative tests must be minimized, the prevalence of congenital deafness is low, and screening tests are imperfect, UNHS results in many false-positive results and has a low positive predictive value (PPV). The objective of this study was to evaluate UNHS and selective screening in terms of both short- and long-term benefits, harms, and financial costs and to identify steps in the screening process that could be improved to increase cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted from the societal perspective, compared the projected outcomes of 1) no newborn hearing screening, 2) selective newborn hearing screening, and 3) UNHS for a hypothetical state birth cohort of 80 000 infants. Probability and cost estimates for the decision model were obtained from published studies, expert opinion, and national and state sources. The main outcomes were incremental cost per infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months, which included only the cost of screening and diagnostic evaluation; and incremental cost per deaf child with normal language, which also included the costs of medical care, education and assistive devices, and lost productivity over the lifetime of the deaf individual.

RESULTS

Selective screening identified 62 of the 128 deaf infants in the birth cohort, referred 0.18% of all infants for diagnostic evaluation, and had a PPV of 43%. UNHS identified 116 of the 128 deaf infants, referred 1.6% of all infants, and had a PPV of 8.8%. Our model simulated real-world conditions in which some infants whose deafness is identified at screening do not receive a definitive diagnosis of being deaf before 6 months; and a portion of deaf and hard-of-hearing infants who 1) have false-negative screening test results, 2) are not screened, or 3) fail the hearing screen but are not immediately followed up with diagnostic evaluation nonetheless receive a diagnosis by 6 months of age. In the absence of newborn hearing screening, approximately 30 deaf infants were identified by 6 months of age by passive detection alone at a cost of $69 000. The selective screening protocol, when compared with no newborn hearing screening, resulted in an additional 36 infants whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months at an additional cost of approximately $600 000, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness of approximately $16 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months. Compared with selective screening, the UNHS protocol resulted in 33 additional infants whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months of age at an additional cost of approximately $1.5 million, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness of approximately $44 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months of age. Increasing the rate of follow-up to diagnostic evaluation from the base-case estimate of 77% to 100% decreased the incremental cost of UNHS to $38 000 per additional infant whose deafness was diagnosed by 6 months. Under the base-case assumptions about lifetime savings that result from normal language with early intervention, UNHS resulted in normal language achievement for more deaf children and was cost saving in the long term compared with both selective screening and no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term cost-effectiveness of UNHS is comparable to the cost per case diagnosed of other newborn screening programs and could be improved by increasing the rate of follow-up to diagnostic evaluation after positive screening test results. If early identification results in improved language abilities, lower educational and vocational costs, and increased lifetime productivity, then UNHS has the potential for long-term cost savings compared with selective hearing screening and no screening. To understand the actual long-term economic effects of UNHS, better evidence is needed regarding the impact of early intervention on language outcomes and subsequent changes in educational costs and lifetime productivity.