Michael Yong1,2, Neelima Panth3, Catherine M McMahon4, Peter R Thorne5,6, Susan D Emmett7,8,9. 1. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. HEAR Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 5. Section of Audiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Eisdell Moore Centre, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 7. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 8. Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 9. Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: School hearing screening may mitigate the effects of childhood hearing loss through early identification and intervention. This study provides an overview of existing school hearing screening programs around the world, identifies gaps in the literature, and develops priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES: A structured search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 65 articles were included according to predefined inclusion criteria. Parameters of interest included age groups screened, audiometric protocols, referral criteria, use of adjunct screening tests, rescreening procedures, hearing loss prevalence, screening test sensitivity and specificity, and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: School hearing screening is mandated in few regions worldwide, and there is little accountability regarding whether testing is performed. Screening protocols differ in terms of screening tests included and thresholds used. The most common protocols included a mix of pure tone screening (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), otoscopy, and tympanometry. Estimates of region-specific disease prevalence were methodologically inaccurate, and rescreening was poorly addressed. Loss to follow-up was also a ubiquitous concern. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is an urgent need for standardized school hearing screening protocol guidelines globally, which will facilitate more accurate studies of hearing loss prevalence and determination of screening test sensitivity and specificity. In turn, these steps will increase the robustness with which we can study the effects of screening and treatment interventions, and they will support the development of guidelines on the screening, diagnostic, and rehabilitation services needed to reduce the impact of childhood hearing loss.
OBJECTIVE: School hearing screening may mitigate the effects of childhood hearing loss through early identification and intervention. This study provides an overview of existing school hearing screening programs around the world, identifies gaps in the literature, and develops priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES: A structured search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 65 articles were included according to predefined inclusion criteria. Parameters of interest included age groups screened, audiometric protocols, referral criteria, use of adjunct screening tests, rescreening procedures, hearing loss prevalence, screening test sensitivity and specificity, and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: School hearing screening is mandated in few regions worldwide, and there is little accountability regarding whether testing is performed. Screening protocols differ in terms of screening tests included and thresholds used. The most common protocols included a mix of pure tone screening (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), otoscopy, and tympanometry. Estimates of region-specific disease prevalence were methodologically inaccurate, and rescreening was poorly addressed. Loss to follow-up was also a ubiquitous concern. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is an urgent need for standardized school hearing screening protocol guidelines globally, which will facilitate more accurate studies of hearing loss prevalence and determination of screening test sensitivity and specificity. In turn, these steps will increase the robustness with which we can study the effects of screening and treatment interventions, and they will support the development of guidelines on the screening, diagnostic, and rehabilitation services needed to reduce the impact of childhood hearing loss.
Authors: L Śliwa; S Hatzopoulos; K Kochanek; A Piłka; A Senderski; P H Skarżyński Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: J Bamford; H Fortnum; K Bristow; J Smith; G Vamvakas; L Davies; R Taylor; P Watkin; S Fonseca; A Davis; S Hind Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: James E Saunders; Sarah Bessen; Isabelle Magro; Devin Cowan; Marvin Gonzalez Quiroz; Karen Mojica-Alvarez; Donoso Penalba; Catherine Reike; Christopher E Niemczak; Abigail Fellows; Jay C Buckey Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 7.664
Authors: Lauren K Dillard; Lucero Lopez-Perez; Ricardo X Martinez; Amanda M Fullerton; Shelly Chadha; Catherine M McMahon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elien Van den Borre; Sam Denys; Lea Zupan; Jan A P M de Laat; Nina Božanić Urbančič; Astrid van Wieringen; Jan Wouters Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2022 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.496