Melissa Wake1, Teresa Y C Ching2, Karen Wirth3, Zeffie Poulakis4, Fiona K Mensah5, Lisa Gold6, Alison King7, Hannah E Bryson3, Sheena Reilly5, Field Rickards8. 1. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; melissa.wake@rch.org.au. 2. National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing, North Ryde, Australia; The HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; 3. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia; 4. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; 5. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; 6. Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; and. 7. Australian Hearing, Box Hill, Australia. 8. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia;
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Colin R Kennedy; Donna C McCann; Michael J Campbell; Catherine M Law; Mark Mullee; Stavros Petrou; Peter Watkin; Sarah Worsfold; Ho Ming Yuen; Jim Stevenson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christine Yoshinaga-Itano; Craig A Mason; Mallene Wiggin; Scott D Grosse; Marcus Gaffney; Phillip M Gilley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 9.703
Authors: Teresa Y C Ching; Harvey Dillon; Laura Button; Mark Seeto; Patricia Van Buynder; Vivienne Marnane; Linda Cupples; Greg Leigh Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rajan Sharma; Yuanyuan Gu; Teresa Y C Ching; Vivienne Marnane; Bonny Parkinson Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Scott D Grosse; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Marcus Gaffney; Craig A Mason; Stuart K Shapira; Marci K Sontag; Kim Van Naarden Braun; John Iskander Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Lilian Downie; Jane L Halliday; Rachel A Burt; Sebastian Lunke; Elly Lynch; Melissa Martyn; Zeffie Poulakis; Clara Gaff; Valerie Sung; Melissa Wake; Matthew Hunter; Kerryn Saunders; Elizabeth Rose; Heidi L Rehm; David J Amor Journal: BMJ Paediatr Open Date: 2017-09-14