Literature DB >> 7717729

Late diagnosis of congenital sensorineural hearing impairment: why are detection methods failing?

C Robertson1, S Aldridge, F Jarman, K Saunders, Z Poulakis, F Oberklaid.   

Abstract

This study was designed to look in detail at the paths to diagnosis for a group of 197 children with congenital sensorineural hearing impairment (SNHI), who were diagnosed between 1989 and 1991 in the state of Victoria, Australia. Despite the existence of universal infant screening at 7-9 months by distraction test or questionnaire, the median age at diagnosis for the study group was 18.0 months, with median age at aid fitting of 20.8 months, and median age at commencement of specialised intervention programmes of 22.3 months. Parent questionnaires completed for 143 (73%) of these children showed that 49% had known risk factors for hearing loss yet only 20% of them had been referred for audiological assessment before the 7-9 month screen. Only 63% of those eligible for the 7-9 month screen had received it. Of those children who were screened by distraction test 46% passed as did 57% of those screened by questionnaire. Twenty four parents (17%) described how they had initially 'denied' their own observations of their infants' abnormal hearing behaviour. When concerns were raised with professionals, 10% of parents were falsely reassured without audiological assessment. Detection methods are failing through a combination of poor screen test efficacy, incomplete population coverage, and parental and professional denial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7717729      PMCID: PMC1510960          DOI: 10.1136/adc.72.1.11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Dis Child        ISSN: 0003-9888            Impact factor:   3.791


  22 in total

1.  Child health services in the community: making them work.

Authors:  A Macfarlane
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-07-26

2.  Screening for hearing loss in childhood: a study of national practice.

Authors:  S Stewart-Brown; M N Haslum
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-05-30

3.  Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: not simple, not risk-free, not necessarily beneficial, and not presently justified.

Authors:  F H Bess; J L Paradise
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Childhood deafness in the European community.

Authors:  J A Martin; O Bentzen; J R Colley; D Hennebert; C Holm; S Iurato; G A de Jonge; O McCullen; M L Meyer; W J Moore; A Morgon
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1981

5.  Childhood deafness in Australia. Incidence and maternal rubella, 1949-1980.

Authors:  L J Upfold; J Isepy
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1982-10-02       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Hearing screening by health visitors: a critical appraisal of the distraction test.

Authors:  B McCormick
Journal:  Health Visit       Date:  1983-12

7.  What is the role of the distraction test of hearing?

Authors:  A Mott; A Emond
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.791

8.  The early detection of childhood deafness.

Authors:  L J Upfold
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1978-11-18       Impact factor: 7.738

9.  Age at fitting of hearing aids and speech intelligibility.

Authors:  A Markides
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1986-05

10.  Deafness: ever heard of it? Delayed recognition of permanent hearing loss.

Authors:  J Coplan
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 7.124

View more
  11 in total

1.  Initiators in processes leading to hearing loss identification in Finnish children.

Authors:  T I Marttila; J O Karikoski
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2005-09-13       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Hearing impairment: a population study of age at diagnosis, severity, and language outcomes at 7-8 years.

Authors:  M Wake; Z Poulakis; E K Hughes; C Carey-Sargeant; F W Rickards
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.791

3.  Six year effectiveness of a population based two tier infant hearing screening programme.

Authors:  S A Russ; F Rickards; Z Poulakis; M Barker; K Saunders; M Wake
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 4.  Neonatal hearing screening.

Authors:  A M Oudesluys-Murphy; H L van Straaten; R Bholasingh; G A van Zanten
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Empowering the deaf. Let the deaf be deaf.

Authors:  I M Munoz-Baell; M T Ruiz
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  The costs of early hearing screening in England and Wales.

Authors:  J C Stevens; D M Hall; A Davis; C M Davies; S Dixon
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.791

7.  Evaluation of an automated auditory brainstem response infant hearing screening method in at risk neonates.

Authors:  H L van Straaten; M E Groote; A M Oudesluys-Murphy
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  The role of current audiological tests in the early diagnosis of hearing impairment in infant.

Authors:  Seikholet Kuki; Shelly Chadha; Shruti Dhingra; Achal Gulati
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-08-25

9.  Qualitative analysis of parents' experience with early detection of hearing loss.

Authors:  S A Russ; A A Kuo; Z Poulakis; M Barker; F Rickards; K Saunders; F C Jarman; M Wake; F Oberklaid
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.791

10.  Effects of parents' level of education and economic status on the age at cochlear implantation in children.

Authors:  Zahra Jeddi; Zahra Jafari; Masoud Motasaddi Zarandy
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.