Literature DB >> 12495952

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

Z Poulakis1, M Barker, M Wake.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12495952      PMCID: PMC1719264          DOI: 10.1136/adc.88.1.20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Dis Child        ISSN: 0003-9888            Impact factor:   3.791


  20 in total

1.  How serious are the adverse effects of screening?

Authors:  W Feldman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence.

Authors:  D C Thompson; H McPhillips; R L Davis; T L Lieu; C J Homer; M Helfand
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001 Oct 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: not simple, not risk-free, not necessarily beneficial, and not presently justified.

Authors:  F H Bess; J L Paradise
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  The morbidity of cardiac nondisease in schoolchildren.

Authors:  A B Bergman; S J Stamm
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1967-05-04       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Maternal concern about positive test results in universal newborn hearing screening.

Authors:  V Weichbold; K Welzl-Mueller
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Parents' knowledge of neonatal screening and response to false-positive cystic fibrosis testing.

Authors:  A Tluczek; E H Mischler; P M Farrell; N Fost; N M Peterson; P Carey; W T Bruns; C McCarthy
Journal:  J Dev Behav Pediatr       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.225

7.  The morbidity of cardiac nondisease revisited. Is there lingering concern associated with an innocent murmur?

Authors:  P C Young
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1993-09

8.  Parental response to repeat testing of infants with 'false-positive' results in a newborn screening program.

Authors:  J R Sorenson; H L Levy; T W Mangione; S J Sepe
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Screening infants for neuroblastoma: the parents' perspective.

Authors:  S Bell; L Parker; M Cole; A W Craft
Journal:  Pediatr Hematol Oncol       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.969

10.  An evaluation of parental concerns and misperceptions about heart murmurs.

Authors:  B W McCrindle; K M Shaffer; J S Kan; K G Zahka; S A Rowe; L Kidd
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 1.168

View more
  6 in total

1.  Factors associated with parental perception of child vulnerability 12 months after abnormal newborn screening results.

Authors:  Audrey Tluczek; Anne Chevalier McKechnie; Roger L Brown
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Long-term evaluation of genetic counseling following false-positive newborn screen for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Laura Cavanagh; Cecilia J Compton; Audrey Tluczek; Roger L Brown; Philip M Farrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Factors affecting parent-child relationships one year after positive newborn screening for cystic fibrosis or congenital hypothyroidism.

Authors:  Audrey Tluczek; Roseanne Clark; Anne Chevalier McKechnie; Roger L Brown
Journal:  J Dev Behav Pediatr       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.225

4.  Neonatal newborn hearing screening: four years' experience at Ferrara University Hospital (CHEAP project): part 1.

Authors:  A Ciorba; S Hatzopoulos; L Camurri; L Negossi; M Rossi; D Cosso; J Petruccelli; A Martini
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.124

5.  Perinatal factors influencing the neonatal hearing screening results.

Authors:  Mahbod Kaveh; Seyedeh Nastaran Mirjalali; Mamak Shariat; Mohammad Reza Zarkesh
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.125

6.  Feasibility of newborn hearing screening in a public hospital setting in South Africa: A pilot study.

Authors:  Amisha Kanji; Katijah Khoza-Shangase
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2016-07-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.