Teresa Y C Ching1,2, Harvey Dillon3,2, Laura Button3,2, Mark Seeto3,2, Patricia Van Buynder3,2, Vivienne Marnane3,2, Linda Cupples4, Greg Leigh3,5. 1. HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia; teresa.ching@nal.gov.au. 2. National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia. 3. HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; and. 5. Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Universal newborn hearing screening has been implemented to detect permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) early, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes through early treatment. However, there is disagreement between studies on the size of this benefit and in some cases whether it is significantly different from 0. There have been no studies of sufficient size in which researchers have determined reliably whether the effect varies with degree of PCHL. We aimed to explore how intervention timing influences 5-year language in children with PCHL. METHODS: Via a prospective study of 350 children, we used standard multiple regression analyses to investigate the effect of age at intervention or hearing screening on language outcomes after allowing for the effects of nonverbal IQ, degree of PCHL, sex, birth weight, maternal education, additional disabilities, and communication mode. RESULTS: The benefit of early intervention for language development increased as hearing loss increased. Children whose amplification started at age 24 months had poorer language than those whose amplification started at 3 months. The difference was larger for 70-dB HL (-11.8 score points; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -18.7 to -4.8) than for 50-dB HL (-6.8; 95% CI: -10.8 to -2.8). Children who received cochlear implants at 24 months had poorer language than those implanted at 6 months (-21.4; 95% CI: -33.8 to -9.0). There was no significant effect of screening on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention improves language outcomes, thereby lending support to streamlining clinical pathways to ensure early amplification and cochlear implantation after diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: Universal newborn hearing screening has been implemented to detect permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) early, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes through early treatment. However, there is disagreement between studies on the size of this benefit and in some cases whether it is significantly different from 0. There have been no studies of sufficient size in which researchers have determined reliably whether the effect varies with degree of PCHL. We aimed to explore how intervention timing influences 5-year language in children with PCHL. METHODS: Via a prospective study of 350 children, we used standard multiple regression analyses to investigate the effect of age at intervention or hearing screening on language outcomes after allowing for the effects of nonverbal IQ, degree of PCHL, sex, birth weight, maternal education, additional disabilities, and communication mode. RESULTS: The benefit of early intervention for language development increased as hearing loss increased. Children whose amplification started at age 24 months had poorer language than those whose amplification started at 3 months. The difference was larger for 70-dB HL (-11.8 score points; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -18.7 to -4.8) than for 50-dB HL (-6.8; 95% CI: -10.8 to -2.8). Children who received cochlear implants at 24 months had poorer language than those implanted at 6 months (-21.4; 95% CI: -33.8 to -9.0). There was no significant effect of screening on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention improves language outcomes, thereby lending support to streamlining clinical pathways to ensure early amplification and cochlear implantation after diagnosis.
Authors: Elizabeth Fitzpatrick; Andrée Durieux-Smith; Alice Eriks-Brophy; Janet Olds; Robin Gaines Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Teresa Y C Ching; Harvey Dillon; Vivienne Marnane; Sanna Hou; Julia Day; Mark Seeto; Kathryn Crowe; Laura Street; Jessica Thomson; Patricia Van Buynder; Vicky Zhang; Angela Wong; Lauren Burns; Christopher Flynn; Linda Cupples; Robert S C Cowan; Greg Leigh; Jessica Sjahalam-King; Angel Yeh Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: J Bruce Tomblin; Jacob J Oleson; Sophie E Ambrose; Elizabeth Walker; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.223
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: Lisa Zhang; Anne R Links; Emily F Boss; Alicia White; Jonathan Walsh Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.223
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: Paola V Incerti; Teresa Y C Ching; Sanna Hou; Patricia Van Buynder; Christopher Flynn; Robert Cowan Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Patricia L Purcell; Nicholas L Deep; Susan B Waltzman; J Thomas Roland; Sharon L Cushing; Blake C Papsin; Karen A Gordon Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.293