PURPOSE: This study investigates clinical practice patterns and parent perception of intervention for children with mild hearing loss (HL). METHOD: Ages at and delays between service delivery steps (first diagnostic evaluation, confirmation of HL, hearing aid [HA] fitting, entry into early intervention) were investigated for 113 children with mild HL. Comparisons were made to children with moderate-to-severe HL. Parents of children with mild HL reported reasons for delays and their perceptions of intervention and amplification for their children. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of children with mild HL were identified through the newborn hearing screen; 26% were identified later due to passing or not receiving a newborn hearing screen. Ninety-four percent of children with mild HL were fit with HAs, albeit at significantly later ages than children with moderate-to-severe HL. Most parents indicated that their children benefited from HA use, but some parents expressed ambivalence toward the amount of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists appear to be moving toward regularly providing amplification for children with mild HL. However, delays in HA fittings indicate that further educating professionals and parents about the benefits of early amplification and intervention is warranted to encourage timely fitting and consistent use of HAs.
PURPOSE: This study investigates clinical practice patterns and parent perception of intervention for children with mild hearing loss (HL). METHOD: Ages at and delays between service delivery steps (first diagnostic evaluation, confirmation of HL, hearing aid [HA] fitting, entry into early intervention) were investigated for 113 children with mild HL. Comparisons were made to children with moderate-to-severe HL. Parents of children with mild HL reported reasons for delays and their perceptions of intervention and amplification for their children. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of children with mild HL were identified through the newborn hearing screen; 26% were identified later due to passing or not receiving a newborn hearing screen. Ninety-four percent of children with mild HL were fit with HAs, albeit at significantly later ages than children with moderate-to-severe HL. Most parents indicated that their children benefited from HA use, but some parents expressed ambivalence toward the amount of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Audiologists appear to be moving toward regularly providing amplification for children with mild HL. However, delays in HA fittings indicate that further educating professionals and parents about the benefits of early amplification and intervention is warranted to encourage timely fitting and consistent use of HAs.
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Lenore Holte; Meredith Spratford; Jacob Oleson; Anne Welhaven; Melody Harrison Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.493
Authors: Jean L Johnson; Karl R White; Judith E Widen; Judith S Gravel; Michele James; Teresa Kennalley; Antonia B Maxon; Lynn Spivak; Maureen Sullivan-Mahoney; Betty R Vohr; Yusnita Weirather; June Holstrum Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Lenore Holte; Ryan W McCreery; Meredith Spratford; Thomas Page; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Patricia G Stelmachowicz; Andrea L Pittman; Brenda M Hoover; Dawna E Lewis; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-05