Denise R Green1, Marcus Gaffney, Owen Devine, Scott D Grosse. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Mailstop E-87, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. dtg0@cdc.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the effect of state Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation on the percentage of infants having their hearing screened within one month of birth. METHODS: Hearing screening data for 2000-2003 were obtained from state hearing screening programs. States with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation were categorized according to legislation type and implementation status, and hearing screening rates were compared between states with implemented legislation and states with no legislation. RESULTS: Hearing screening rates among states that implemented Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation were significantly higher than rates in no-legislation states throughout the study period, although the mean screening rate among no-legislation states increased substantially from 2000 through 2003. The percentage of states attaining a 95% national screening quality indicator in each year was substantially greater among states with implemented legislation. In 2003, 76% of states with implemented Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation reported screening at least 95% of infants, compared with 26% of states without legislation. Although there is a greater likelihood of meeting the national screening target with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation than without, other factors such as collaborative relationships and federal funding can also influence this outcome. CONCLUSION: State legislation has had a positive effect on hearing screening rates and is one tool states can use to help ensure that infants are screened for hearing loss.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the effect of state Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation on the percentage of infants having their hearing screened within one month of birth. METHODS: Hearing screening data for 2000-2003 were obtained from state hearing screening programs. States with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation were categorized according to legislation type and implementation status, and hearing screening rates were compared between states with implemented legislation and states with no legislation. RESULTS: Hearing screening rates among states that implemented Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation were significantly higher than rates in no-legislation states throughout the study period, although the mean screening rate among no-legislation states increased substantially from 2000 through 2003. The percentage of states attaining a 95% national screening quality indicator in each year was substantially greater among states with implemented legislation. In 2003, 76% of states with implemented Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation reported screening at least 95% of infants, compared with 26% of states without legislation. Although there is a greater likelihood of meeting the national screening target with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening legislation than without, other factors such as collaborative relationships and federal funding can also influence this outcome. CONCLUSION: State legislation has had a positive effect on hearing screening rates and is one tool states can use to help ensure that infants are screened for hearing loss.
Authors: Joseph E Kerschner; John R Meurer; Ann E Conway; Sharon Fleischfresser; Melissa H Cowell; Elizabeth Seeliger; Varghese George Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: George A Mensah; Richard A Goodman; Stephanie Zaza; Anthony D Moulton; Paula L Kocher; William H Dietz; Terry F Pechacek; James S Marks Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Melody Harrison; Thomas A Page; Jacob Oleson; Meredith Spratford; Lauren Unflat Berry; Barbara Peterson; Anne Welhaven; Richard M Arenas; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Delaney Gracy; Anupa Fabian; Corey Hannah Basch; Maria Scigliano; Sarah A MacLean; Rachel K MacKenzie; Irwin E Redlener Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240