Suhana Alam1, Winnie Chung1, Xidong Deng1, Tammy O'Hollearn2, Jim Beavers3, Rebekah F Cunningham4, Alyssa K Rex4, ThuyQuynh N Do1. 1. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 2. Iowa Department of Public Health, Des Moines, Iowa. 3. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Lincoln, Nebraska. 4. Indiana State Department of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, benefits, and challenges surrounding individual-level versus aggregate data reporting by jurisdictional EHDI programs to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). METHOD: Using data reported to CDC by three jurisdictions in 2011, descriptive statistics were used to assess the feasibility of collecting and reporting individual-level data. Comparisons were made on what can be learned from individual-level data as opposed to CDC's aggregate survey data. RESULTS: Individual-level data provided a detailed overview of the population served, services received, and variations across jurisdictions in data collection, reporting, and quality monitoring practices. Several challenges and areas needing improvement were identified: variations in (1) data standardization; (2) data collection and reporting procedures; and (3) protocols for recommended follow-up services. CONCLUSIONS: Using individual-level data, CDC was able to perform in-depth statistical analyses and learn more about each jurisdiction's population, their EHDI process, and challenges to data collection, tracking, and surveillance efforts. As a result, CDC was able to provide more targeted technical assistance. All of the above would not be feasible using aggregate survey data. The pilot study demonstrated that individual-level data reporting to CDC is feasible and offers many opportunities for both CDC and jurisdictional EHDI programs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, benefits, and challenges surrounding individual-level versus aggregate data reporting by jurisdictional EHDI programs to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). METHOD: Using data reported to CDC by three jurisdictions in 2011, descriptive statistics were used to assess the feasibility of collecting and reporting individual-level data. Comparisons were made on what can be learned from individual-level data as opposed to CDC's aggregate survey data. RESULTS: Individual-level data provided a detailed overview of the population served, services received, and variations across jurisdictions in data collection, reporting, and quality monitoring practices. Several challenges and areas needing improvement were identified: variations in (1) data standardization; (2) data collection and reporting procedures; and (3) protocols for recommended follow-up services. CONCLUSIONS: Using individual-level data, CDC was able to perform in-depth statistical analyses and learn more about each jurisdiction's population, their EHDI process, and challenges to data collection, tracking, and surveillance efforts. As a result, CDC was able to provide more targeted technical assistance. All of the above would not be feasible using aggregate survey data. The pilot study demonstrated that individual-level data reporting to CDC is feasible and offers many opportunities for both CDC and jurisdictional EHDI programs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early hearing detection and intervention; newborn hearing screen; surveillance and tracking