Literature DB >> 26967534

Parent Perception of Newborn Hearing Screening: Results of a US National Survey.

Melissa A Pynnonen1, Jaynee A Handelsman2, Ericka F King3, Dianne C Singer4, Matthew M Davis5, Marci M Lesperance2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: An unacceptably high number of children who do not pass universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) are lost to follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into parent recall of UNHS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nationally representative cross-sectional survey, 2144 US parent households were surveyed in May 2012 using the Knowledge Panel. Responses of parents whose children were born before vs after UNHS implementation were compared. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcome measures included recall of hearing screen at birth, hearing screen results, and recommendations for follow-up. All outcome measures were based on parent recall and report. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression analyses were used.
RESULTS: The study participants included 1539 parent households and 605 nonparent households. Of the 1539 parent households surveyed, the mean age of the parents was 38.8 years (range, 18-88 years), the mean age of the children was 10.2 years (range, 0-17 years), and the mean age of children with hearing loss was 12.1 years (range, 0-17 years). A total of 1539 parents (55.8%) were women. Only 62.9% of parents (unweighted n = 950) recalled a newborn hearing screen, and among those children with risk indicators for hearing loss (n = 587), only 68.6% (unweighted n = 385) recalled a hearing screen. Higher parent educational level (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% CI, 1.17-4.41, for some college and OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.22-4.78, for a bachelor's degree; P = .03), younger age of the child (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; P < .001), and the presence of any risk indicator for hearing loss (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13; P = .007) were associated with parent recall of hearing screen. Reported pass rates were higher than expected. Parent recall of follow-up recommendations was not always consistent with guidelines. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although this study is inherently limited by recall bias, the findings indicate a lack of parent awareness of UNHS. Changes in the system of reporting UNHS results are necessary to improve parent recall of screen results and improve follow-up for children who do not pass the screen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26967534      PMCID: PMC4911253          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.3948

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2168-6181            Impact factor:   6.223


  8 in total

1.  2009 seasonal and H1N1 influenza vaccination compliance in asthmatic children and adults.

Authors:  Harvey L Leo; Sarah J Clark; Amy T Butchart; Dianne C Singer; Noreen M Clark; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2010-05-23       Impact factor: 10.793

2.  Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Newborn hearing screening: will children with hearing loss caused by congenital cytomegalovirus infection be missed?

Authors:  K B Fowler; A J Dahle; S B Boppana; R F Pass
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.406

4.  Early hearing detection and intervention: diagnostic hearing assessment practices.

Authors:  Karen Muñoz; Lauri Nelson; Natalie Goldgewicht; Dennis Odell
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 1.493

5.  Early hearing detection and intervention: parent experiences with the diagnostic hearing assessment.

Authors:  Rebecca Larsen; Karen Muñoz; Janet DesGeorges; Lauri Nelson; Sara Kennedy
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 1.493

6.  The Colorado newborn hearing screening project, 1992-1999: on the threshold of effective population-based universal newborn hearing screening.

Authors:  Albert L Mehl; Vickie Thomson
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Parental perspectives on adolescent hearing loss risk and prevention.

Authors:  Deepa L Sekhar; Sarah J Clark; Matthew M Davis; Dianne C Singer; Ian M Paul
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 6.223

8.  To pay or not to pay: public perception regarding insurance coverage of obesity treatment.

Authors:  Susan J Woolford; Sarah J Clark; Amy Butchart; James D Geiger; Matthew M Davis; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 5.002

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Impact of Meeting Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Benchmarks on Spoken Language.

Authors:  Brittany Grey; Elizabeth K Deutchki; Emily A Lund; Krystal L Werfel
Journal:  J Early Interv       Date:  2021-06-18

2.  Identification of oral clefts as a risk factor for hearing loss during newborn hearing screening.

Authors:  Patricia L Purcell; Kathleen Cy Sie; Todd C Edwards; Debra Lochner Doyle; Karin Neidt
Journal:  J Early Hear Detect Interv       Date:  2018

3.  Maternal knowledge and views regarding early hearing detection and intervention in children aged 0-5 years at a semi-urban primary care clinic in South Africa.

Authors:  Katerina Ehlert; Celeste Coetzer
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2020-07-21
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.