Andrea M L Bussé1, Allison R Mackey2, Hans L J Hoeve1, André Goedegebure1, Gwen Carr3, Inger M Uhlén2, Huibert J Simonsz1. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head, Neck Surgery and Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Independent consultant in Early Hearing Detection, Intervention and Family Centered Practice, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) varies regarding number and type of tests, location, age, professionals and funding. We compared the provision of existing screening programmes. DESIGN: A questionnaire containing nine domains: demography, administration, existing screening, coverage, tests, diagnosis, treatment, cost and adverse effects, was presented to hearing screening experts. Responses were verified. Clusters were identified based on number of screening steps and use of OAE or aABR, either for all infants or for well and high-risk infants (dual-protocol). STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-two experts completed the questionnaire sufficiently: 40 European countries, Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. RESULTS: It took considerable effort to find experts for all countries with sufficient time and knowledge. Data essential for evaluation are often not collected. Infants are first screened in maternity wards in most countries. Human development index and health expenditure were high among countries with dual protocols, three screening steps, including aABR, and low among countries without NHS and countries using OAE for all infants. Nationwide implementation of NHS took 6 years, on average. CONCLUSION: The extent and complexity of NHS programmes are primarily related to health expenditure and HDI. Data collection should be improved to facilitate comparison of NHS programmes across borders.
OBJECTIVES: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) varies regarding number and type of tests, location, age, professionals and funding. We compared the provision of existing screening programmes. DESIGN: A questionnaire containing nine domains: demography, administration, existing screening, coverage, tests, diagnosis, treatment, cost and adverse effects, was presented to hearing screening experts. Responses were verified. Clusters were identified based on number of screening steps and use of OAE or aABR, either for all infants or for well and high-risk infants (dual-protocol). STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-two experts completed the questionnaire sufficiently: 40 European countries, Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. RESULTS: It took considerable effort to find experts for all countries with sufficient time and knowledge. Data essential for evaluation are often not collected. Infants are first screened in maternity wards in most countries. Human development index and health expenditure were high among countries with dual protocols, three screening steps, including aABR, and low among countries without NHS and countries using OAE for all infants. Nationwide implementation of NHS took 6 years, on average. CONCLUSION: The extent and complexity of NHS programmes are primarily related to health expenditure and HDI. Data collection should be improved to facilitate comparison of NHS programmes across borders.
Authors: Anita Gáborján; Gábor Katona; Miklós Szabó; Béla Muzsik; Marianna Küstel; Mihály Horváth; László Tamás Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.236
Authors: Allison R Mackey; Andrea M L Bussé; Valeria Del Vecchio; Elina Mäki-Torkko; Inger M Uhlén Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.567
Authors: Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Mirjam L Verkleij; Jill Carlton; Anna M Horwood; Maria Fronius; Jan Kik; Frea Sloot; Cristina Vladutiu; Huibert J Simonsz; Harry J de Koning Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-06-27