Search

The World Health Organization considers Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) essential to global public health. Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram has included newborn hearing screening in India since 2013. The program faces human, infrastructure, and equipment shortages. First-line hearing screening with improved diagnostic accuracy is needed. The Portable Automated Auditory Brainstem Responses (P-AABR) can be used in remote areas for UNHS due to its low infrastructure needs and diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of P-AABR in UNHS. We employed an analytical model based on decision trees to assess the cost-effectiveness of Otoacoustic Emission (OAE) and P-AABR. The total cost to the health system for P-AABR, regardless of true positive cases, is INR 10,535,915, while OAE costs INR 7,256,198. P-AABR detects 262 cases, whereas OAE detects 26 cases. Portable Automated ABR costs INR 97 per case detection, while OAE costs INR 67. The final ICER was 97407.69. The P-AABR device is cost-effective, safe and feasible for UNHS Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK) programs. Beyond reducing false referrals and parent indirect costs, it detects more hearing-impaired infants. Even in shortages of skilled workers, existing staff can be trained. Thus, this study suggests integrating this device into community and primary health centers to expand UNHS coverage., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Sahoo, Dwivedi, Athe, Chauhan, Jain, Sahoo, Bhattacharya, Rajsekhar and Pati.)

Objective: To emphasize the benefits of tele-otology in community screening of patients with ear diseases., Methods: A retrospective study of all patients screened and treated under the Shruti tele-otology program between 2013 and 2019 was conducted. It involved screening, diagnosis, medical management, surgical intervention, and rehabilitation using hearing aid. The study focused on underprivileged and underserved community of rural and urban slums across 12 states of India. The study was conducted using a telemedicine device called ENTraview, that is, a camera-enabled android phone integrated with an otoscope and audiometry screening., Result: A total of 810 746 people were screened, and incidence of various ear diseases was recorded. Ear problems were found in 265 615 (33%) patients, of which 151 067 (57%) had impacted wax, 46 792(18%) had chronic suppurative otitis media, 27 875 (10%) had diminished hearing, 12 729 (5%) had acute otitis media and acute suppurative otitis media (ASOM), and 27 152 (10%) had problems of foreign body, otomycosis, and so on. Of the total 265 615 referred patients, 20 986 (8%) reported for treatment and received treatment at a significantly reduced cost through Shruti program partners. The conversion rate of nonsurgical and surgical procedure was also compared, and it was found that, while 9% of the patients opted for nonsurgical treatment, only 3% opted for surgery in the intervention group giving a significant P value of .00001., Conclusion: The potential for telemedicine to reduce inequalities in health care is immense but remains underutilized. Shruti has largely been able to bridge this gap as it is an innovative, fast, and effective programs that address the ear ailment in the community.

Objectives: The EUSCREEN study compares the cost-effectiveness of paediatric hearing screening programmes and aims to develop a cost-effectiveness model for this purpose. Alongside and informed by the development of the model, neonatal hearing screening (NHS) is implemented in Albania. We report on the first year., Methods: An implementation plan was made addressing objectives, target population, screening protocol, screener training, screening devices, care pathways and follow up. NHS started January 1st, 2018 in four maternity hospitals: two in Tirana, one in Pogradec and one in Kukës, representing both urban and rural areas. OAE-OAE-aABR was used to screen well infants in maternity hospitals, whereas aABR-aABR was used in neonatal intensive care units and in mountainous Kukës for all infants. Screeners' uptake and attitudes towards screening and quality of screening were assessed by distributing questionnaires and visiting the maternity hospitals. The result of screening, diagnostics, follow up and entry into early intervention were registered in a database and monitored., Results: Screeners were keen to improve their skills in screening and considered NHS valuable for Albanian health care. The number of "fail" outcomes after the first screen was high initially but decreased to less than 10% after eight months. In 2018, 11,507 infants were born in the four participating maternity hospitals, 10,925 (94.9%) of whom were screened in the first step. For 486 infants the result of screening was not registered. For the first screen, ten parents declined, eight infants died and one infant was discharged before screening could be performed. In 1115 (10.2%) infants the test either could not be performed or the threshold was not reached; 361 (32,4%) of these did not attend the second screen. For the third screen 31 (34.4%) out of 90 did not attend. Reasons given were: parents declined (124), lived too far from screening location (95), their infant died (11), had other health issues (7), or was screened in private clinic (17), no reason given (138)., Conclusions: Implementation of NHS in Albania is feasible despite continuing challenges. Acceptance was high for the first screen. However, 32.4% of 1115 infants did not attend the second screen, after a "fail" outcome for the first test., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: School hearing screening is a public health intervention that can improve care for children who experience hearing loss that is not detected on or develops after newborn screening. However, implementation of school hearing screening is sporadic and supported by mixed evidence to its economic benefit. This scoping review provides a summary of all published cost-effectiveness studies regarding school hearing screening programs globally. At the time of this review, there were no previously published reviews of a similar nature., Data Sources: A structured search was applied to 4 databases: PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library., Review Methods: The database search was carried out by 2 independent researchers, and results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies that included a cost analysis of screening programs for school-aged children in the school environment were eligible for inclusion. Studies that involved evaluations of only neonatal or preschool programs were excluded., Results: Four of the 5 studies that conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis reported that school hearing screening was cost-effective through the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) via either quality- or disability-adjusted life years. One study reported that a new school hearing screening program dominated the existing program; 2 studies reported ICERs ranging from 1079 to 4304 international dollars; and 1 study reported an ICER of £2445. One study reported that school-entry hearing screening was not cost-effective versus no screening., Conclusion: The majority of studies concluded that school hearing screening was cost-effective. However, significant differences in methodology and region-specific estimates of model inputs limit the generalizability of these findings.

Background: The percentage of older adults with hearing loss who stop using their hearing aids and the variables associated with this phenomenon have not been systematically investigated in South America. This problem is relevant to the region since countries such as Colombia, Brazil and Chile have public programmes that provide hearing aids to older adults. The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of older adults fitted with a hearing aid at a public hospital in Chile who subsequently stop using it and the auditory and socio-demographic variables associated with the hazard of discontinuing hearing aid use., Methods: A group that included 355 older adults who had been fitted with a hearing aid was studied retrospectively. In a structured interview, participants were asked about socio-demographic variables and answered part of the Chilean National Survey on Health, evaluating self-perceived hearing loss and responding to questions about discontinuation of hearing aid use and their satisfaction with the device. Survival models were applied to determine the hazard of stopping hearing aid use in relation to the variables of interest., Results: The rate of discontinuation of hearing aid use reached 21.7%. Older adults stopped using their hearing aids mainly during the first 5-6 months post-fitting, and then this number steadily increased. The income fifth quintile was 2.56 times less likely to stop using the hearing aid compared to the first. Those who self-reported that they could not hear correctly without the hearing aid were 2.62 times less likely to stop using it compared to those who reported normal hearing. The group that was very dissatisfied with the hearing aid was 20.86 times more likely to discontinue use than those who reported satisfaction with the device., Conclusions: Socio-demographic variables such as economic income and auditory factors such as self-perceived hearing loss and satisfaction with the device were significantly associated with the hazard of stopping hearing aid use. Self-perceived hearing loss should be considered part of the candidacy criteria for hearing aids in older adults in Chile and other (developing) countries.

Context: Permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) can affect speech, language, and wider outcomes. Adverse effects are mitigated through universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early intervention., Objective: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence of UNHS-detected PCHL (bilateral loss ≥26 dB HL) and its variation by admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). A secondary objective was to report UNHS programme performance (PROSPERO: CRD42016051267)., Data Sources: Multiple electronic databases were interrogated in January 2017, with further reports identified from article citations and unpublished literature (November 2017)., Study Selection: UNHS reports from very highly-developed (VHD) countries with relevant prevalence and performance data; no language or date restrictions., Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality., Results: We identified 41 eligible reports from 32 study populations (1799863 screened infants) in 6195 non-duplicate references. Pooled UNHS-detected PCHL prevalence was 1.1 per 1000 screened children (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9, 1.3; I2 = 89.2%). This was 6.9 times (95% CI: 3.8, 12.5) higher among those admitted to NICU. Smaller studies were significantly associated with higher prevalences (Egger's test: p = 0.02). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89-100% and 92-100% respectively, positive predictive values from 2-84%, with all negative predictive values 100%., Limitations: Results are generalisable to VHD countries only. Estimates and inferences were limited by available data., Conclusions: In VHD countries, 1 per 1000 screened newborns require referral to clinical services for PCHL. Prevalence is higher in those admitted to NICU. Improved reporting would support further examination of screen performance and child demographics., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: This study evaluated the cost and outcome of a community-based hearing screening programme in which village health workers (VHWs) screened children in their homes using a two-step DPOAE screening protocol. Children referred in a second screening underwent tele diagnostic ABR testing in a mobile tele-van using satellite connectivity or at local centre using broadband internet at the rural location., Design: Economic analysis was carried out to estimate cost incurred and outcome achieved for hearing screening, follow-up diagnostic assessment and identification of hearing loss. Two-way sensitivity analysis determined the most beneficial cost-outcome., Study Sample: 1335 children under 5 years of age underwent screening by VHWs., Results: Nineteen of the 22 children referred completed the tele diagnostic evaluation. Five children were identified with hearing loss. The cost-outcomes were better when using broadband internet for tele-diagnostics. The use of least expensive human resources and equipment yielded the lowest cost per child screened (Rs.1526; $23; €21). When follow-up expenses were thus maximised, the cost per child was reduced considerably for diagnostic hearing assessment (Rs.102,065; $1532; €1368) and for the cost per child identified (Rs.388,237; $5826; €5204)., Conclusion: Settings with constrained resources can benefit from a community-based programme integrated with tele diagnostics.

Importance: Providing a model of a comprehensive free audiologic program may assist other health care professionals in developing their own similar program., Objective: To describe the structure, feasibility, and outcomes of a free subspecialty clinic providing hearing aids to develop a paradigm for other programs interested in implementing similar projects., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective case series was conducted from September 1, 2013, through March 31, 2016. In a partnership between a free independent clinic for indigent patients and an academic medical center, 54 indigent patients were referred to the clinic for audiograms. A total of 50 of these patients had results of audiograms available for review and were therefore included in the study; 34 of these 50 patients were determined to be eligible for hearing aid fitting based on audiometric results., Exposures: Free audiometric testing, hearing aid fitting, and hearing aid donation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of hearing aids donated, number of eligible patients identified, number of patients fitted with hearing aids, and work effort (hours) and start-up costs associated with implementation of this program were quantified., Results: A total of 54 patients (31 women [57.4%] and 23 men [42.6%]; median age, 61 years; range, 33-85 years) had audiograms performed, and 84 hearing aids were donated to the program. The patients were provided with free audiograms, hearing aid molds, and hearing aid programming, as well as follow-up appointments to ensure continued proper functioning of their hearing aids. Since 2013, a total of 34 patients have been determined to be eligible for the free program and were offered hearing aid services. Of these, 20 patients (59%) have been fitted or are being fitted with free hearing aids. The value of services provided is estimated to be $2260 per patient., Conclusions and Relevance: It is feasible to provide free, comprehensive audiologic care, including hearing aids and fitting, in a well-established, free clinic model. The opportunity for indigent patients to use hearing aids at minimal personal cost is a major step forward in improving access to high-quality care.

Objective: Little is known about the long-term efficacious and economic impacts of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS)., Design: An analytical Markov decision model was framed with two screening strategies: UNHS with transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) test and automatic acoustic brainstem response (aABR) test against no screening. By estimating intervention and long-term costs on treatment and productivity losses and the utility of life years determined by the status of hearing loss, we computed base-case estimates of the incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). The scattered plot of ICUR and acceptability curve was used to assess the economic results of aABR versus TEOAE or both versus no screening., Study Sample: A hypothetical cohort of 200,000 Taiwanese newborns., Results: TEOAE and aABR dominated over no screening strategy (ICUR = $-4800.89 and $-4111.23, indicating less cost and more utility). Given $20,000 of willingness to pay (WTP), the probability of being cost-effective of aABR against TEOAE was up to 90%., Conclusions: UNHS for hearing loss with aABR is the most economic option and supported by economically evidence-based evaluation from societal perspective.

Background: Identification of permanent hearing impairment at the earliest possible age is crucial to maximise the development of speech and language. Universal newborn hearing screening identifies the majority of the 1 in 1000 children born with a hearing impairment, but later onset can occur at any time and there is no optimum time for further screening. A universal but non-standardised school entry screening (SES) programme is in place in many parts of the UK but its value is questioned., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hearing screening tests and the cost-effectiveness of the SES programme in the UK., Design: Systematic review, case-control diagnostic accuracy study, comparison of routinely collected data for services with and without a SES programme, parental questionnaires, observation of practical implementation and cost-effectiveness modelling., Setting: Second- and third-tier audiology services; community., Participants: Children aged 4-6 years and their parents., Main Outcome Measures: Diagnostic accuracy of two hearing screening devices, referral rate and source, yield, age at referral and cost per quality-adjusted life-year., Results: The review of diagnostic accuracy studies concluded that research to date demonstrates marked variability in the design, methodological quality and results. The pure-tone screen (PTS) (Amplivox, Eynsham, UK) and HearCheck (HC) screener (Siemens, Frimley, UK) devices had high sensitivity (PTS ≥ 89%, HC ≥ 83%) and specificity (PTS ≥ 78%, HC ≥ 83%) for identifying hearing impairment. The rate of referral for hearing problems was 36% lower with SES (Nottingham) relative to no SES (Cambridge) [rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.69; p < 0.001]. The yield of confirmed cases did not differ between areas with and without SES (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; p = 0.12). The mean age of referral did not differ between areas with and without SES for all referrals but children with confirmed hearing impairment were older at referral in the site with SES (mean age difference 0.47 years, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70 years; p < 0.001). Parental responses revealed that the consequences to the family of the referral process are minor. A SES programme is unlikely to be cost-effective and, using base-case assumptions, is dominated by a no screening strategy. A SES programme could be cost-effective if there are fewer referrals associated with SES programmes or if referrals occur more quickly with SES programmes., Conclusions: A SES programme using the PTS or HC screener is unlikely to be effective in increasing the identified number of cases with hearing impairment and lowering the average age at identification and is therefore unlikely to represent good value for money. This finding is, however, critically dependent on the results of the observational study comparing Nottingham and Cambridge, which has limitations. The following are suggested: systematic reviews of the accuracy of devices used to measure hearing at school entry; characterisation and measurement of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to the ad-hoc referral system; examination of programme specificity as opposed to test specificity; further observational comparative studies of different programmes; and opportunistic trials of withdrawal of SES programmes., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61668996., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is an important cause of childhood deafness, which is modifiable if diagnosed within the first month of life. Targeted screening of infants who do not pass their newborn hearing screening tests in England is a feasible approach to identify and treat cases to improve hearing outcome., Aims: To conduct a cost analysis of targeted screening and subsequent treatment for cCMV-related sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in an, otherwise, asymptomatic infant, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS)., Methods: Using data from the newborn hearing screening programme (NHSP) in England and a recent study of targeted screening for cCMV using salivary swabs within the NHSP, we estimate the cost (in UK pounds (£)) to the NHS. The cost of screening (time, swabs and PCR), assessing, treating and following up cases is calculated. The cost per case of preventing hearing deterioration secondary to cCMV with targeted screening is calculated., Results: The cost of identifying, assessing and treating a case of cCMV-related SNHL through targeted cCMV screening is estimated to be £6683. The cost of improving hearing outcome for an infant with cCMV-related SNHL through targeted screening and treatment is estimated at £14 202., Conclusions: The costs of targeted screening for cCMV using salivary swabs integrated within NHSP resulted in an estimate of cost per case that compares favourably with other screening programmes. This could be used in future studies to estimate the full economic value in terms of incremental costs and incremental health benefits., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the two-stage hearing test to detect hearing disabilities in the community elders., Material and Method: A prospective cohort study was conducted in the Phuwieng District, Khon Kaen, Thailand from December 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013. All of the elders more than 60 years of age were invited. First, screening using the Thai version of five-minute hearing test (Thai-FMHT) with a score equal to or greater than 12 was included in the group and then given the next audiometric examination., Results: Two hundred fifty-eight elders were interested in this program, but only 192 subjects consented to participate in the entire study. Six participants withdrew before completing the protocol; therefore, 107 males and 79 females were included. The age ranged 60-92 years old. Only 152 participants (81.7%; 95% CI: 75.5-86.6%) had a hearing disability that could be rehabilitated using a hearing aid. The cost of hearing screening using this program was reduced from $114.15 to $28.60 per positive case with the need for hearing rehabilitation., Conclusion: The two-stage hearing screening using the Thai-FMHT followed by an audiometric examination was found to be a suitable test for community-based mass screening of hearing loss, particularly in an area with limited resources.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening 50- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss in The Netherlands. We compared no screening, telephone screening, Internet screening, screening with a handheld screening device, and audiometric screening for various starting ages and a varying number of repeated screenings., Methods: The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for no screening and for 76 screening strategies were analyzed using a Markov model with cohort simulation for the year 2011. Screening was deemed to be cost-effective if the costs were less than €20,000/QALY., Results: Screening with a handheld screening device and audiometric screening were generally more costly but less effective than telephone and Internet screening. Internet screening strategies were slightly better than telephone screening strategies. Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, was the most cost-effective strategy, costing €3699/QALY. At a threshold of €20,000/QALY, this strategy was with 100% certainty cost-effective compared with current practice and with 69% certainty the most cost-effective strategy among all strategies., Conclusions: This study suggests that Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, is the optimal strategy to screen for hearing loss and might be considered for nationwide implementation., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe., Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked., Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1-4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand., Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4), and funding sources (8)., (© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two-stage and three-stage hearing screenings for newborns., Methods: Hearing screening was performed for the normal newborns born in 7 hospitals in Beijing from October 2010 to December 2012 by using two stage and three stage strategies as well as hearing diagnostic test, and the cost effectiveness evaluation of two strategies was conducted. The data about the cost of screening and diagnostic test were from the hospitals. The data about car fare and charge for loss of working time of parents were collected through questionnaire survey. The sensitivity was analyzed according to the compliance rate., Results: A total of 62,695 newborns received initial hearing screening, 5,809 newborns failed, the positive rate was 9.30%. A total of 4,933 newborns received rescreening, 972 newborns failed, the positive rate was 19.70%. Among the newborns failed in rescreening, 412 were provided with hearing diagnostic test and 360 received diagnostic test. The diagnostic test indicated that the hearing of 217 newborns were abnormal (60.28%). A total of 276 newborns received the third screening, 163 newborns failed, in which 125 received diagnostic test and 112 had abnormal hearing (45 had moderate and above hearing impairment), the abnormal rate was 89.60%. The average cost for three-stage screening (37,242 yuan RMB per case) was higher than that for two-stage screening (19,985 yuan RMB per case). With the increase of compliance, the cost-effectiveness of three-stage screening increased., Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of three-stage screening was influenced by screening compliance. It is recommended that three-stage screening strategy might be taken in area where the screening compliance rate is >90%.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the effectiveness of parent or teacher-completed questionnaires as a tool to screen school-aged children for permanent hearing loss., Design: A rapid evidence assessment was completed to provide a summary of information published between 1980 and 2013 in English or Spanish. To identify relevant publications, a database search was conducted using nine databases., Study Sample: Seven studies were identified for inclusion in the review., Results: Authors of three of the studies recommended use of the questionnaire as a method for screening hearing in school-aged children, and authors of four of the studies did not recommend use of the questionnaire. However, only one of the seven studies provided good evidence that questionnaires are an effective way of identifying hearing loss among children., Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that parent or teacher completed questionnaire screening can be reliably used to identify children in need of further hearing assessment. It is clear that more research is needed before concluding that questionnaires are an effective and low-cost tool for use to screen children for permanent hearing loss.

Objectives/hypothesis: To establish an ideal operative procedure of universal newborn hearing screening and to investigate whether a government-funded program increases compliance with such screening., Study Design: Individual cohort study., Methods: Of the 3,373 neonates born at the Taipei City Hospital during the period August 2009 to July 2010, there were 3,361 who received hearing screening with automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) 24 to 36 hours after birth. The cost of each procedure (US $16.70) was covered by the Taipei City Health Bureau. The control group comprised 6,582 neonates born at the same hospital during the period January 2003 to December 2004, of whom 5,749 had been screened with transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE). The cost of each procedure (US $26.70) was paid by the parents of each newborn., Results: The incidence of bilateral moderate to severe hearing impairment was 0.06% (two out of 3,361) and 0.10% (six out of 5,749) in the study and the control group, respectively. The incidence of unilateral hearing impairment was 0.09% (three out of 3,361) and 0.19% (11 out of 5,749) respectively. The coverage rate of the study was significantly higher than that of the control group (99.64% vs. 87.34%, P < .001). A significant decrease of the referral rate was achieved in the study group when compared with the control group (0.95% vs. 2.82%, P < .001). The follow-up rate of the study group was significantly higher than that of the control group (100.00% vs. 40.74%, P < .001)., Conclusions: The government-funded AABR program resulted in markedly better parental compliance with newborn hearing screening than the self-pay TEOAE screening program., Level of Evidence: 2b., (Copyright © 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.)

Background: In 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Health recommended scale-up of routine neonatal hearing screening - previously performed primarily only in select urban hospitals - throughout the entire country., Methods: A decision analytical model for a simulated population of all live births in china was developed to compare the costs and health effects of five mutually exclusive interventions: 1) universal screening using Otoacoustic Emission (OAE) and Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR); 2) universal OAE; 3) targeted OAE and AABR; 4) targeted OAE; and 5) no screening. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were calculated for health effects., Results and Discussion: Based on the cost-effectiveness and potential health outcomes, the optimal path for scale-up would be to start with targeted OAE and then expand to universal OAE and universal OAE plus AABR. Accessibility of screening, diagnosis, and intervention services significantly affect decision of the options., Conclusion: In conclusion, to achieve cost-effectiveness and best health outcomes of the NHS program, the accessibility of screening, diagnosis, and intervention services should be expanded to reach a larger population. The results are thus expected to be of particular benefit in terms of the 'rolling out' of the national plan.

Description: Update of the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for hearing impairment in older adults., Methods: The USPSTF reviewed evidence published between 1950 and January 2010 on screening for age-related sensorineural hearing impairment in adults aged 50 years or older without diagnosed hearing loss in the primary care setting., Population: This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults aged 50 years or older. It does not apply to persons seeking evaluation for perceived hearing problems or for cognitive or affective symptoms that may be related to hearing loss., Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in asymptomatic adults aged 50 years or older (I statement).

Unlabelled: From year 2003, the UNHS nationwide survey was commenced in Italy by the Italian Institute of Social Medicine, and was conducted in all Italian maternity hospitals in 2003, 2006 and 2008. All maternity wards active in Italy were included., Results: Our study showed that the coverage and penetration of the UNHS programmes in Italy has increased from 2003 to 2008. At the end of 2008, 324,537 newborns (60.6% of the total) were screened in Italian maternity hospitals. The referral rate before discharge varied from 2.6 to 16.7%, and this situation is reflected in a significant increase in costs., Conclusions: Considering the high cost of audiological confirmation, the first objective is to reduce the number of referred cases (false positives), by improving the training of screening personnel. In addition, close cooperation between audiological centres and maternity units and a dedicated secretariat team are important in increasing the efficacy of universal hearing screening. The investment in prevention will be repaid many times over.

Objective: Universal newborn hearing screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment is standard practice in many developed economies, but until there is clear evidence of cost-effectiveness, it remains a controversial use of limited health care resources. We conducted a formal systematic review of studies of newborn hearing screening that considered both costs and outcomes to produce a summary of the available evidence and to determine whether there was a need for further research., Methods: A search was conducted of medical and nursing databases and gray literature websites by the use of multiple keywords. The titles and abstracts of studies were examined for preliminary inclusion if reference was made to newborn hearing screening, and to both costs and outcomes. Studies of potential relevance were independently assessed by 2 health economists for final inclusion in the review. Studies that met inclusion criteria were appraised by the use of existing guidelines for observational studies, economic evaluations and decision analytic models, and reported in a narrative literature review., Results: There were 22 distinct observational or modeled evaluations of which only 2 clearly compared universal newborn hearing screening to risk factor screening for bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. Of these, the single evaluation that examined long-term costs and outcomes found that universal newborn hearing screening could be cost-saving if early intervention led to a substantial reduction in future treatment costs and productivity losses., Conclusions: There are only a small number of economic evaluations that have examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening. This is partly attributable to ongoing uncertainty about the benefits gained from the early detection and treatment of bilateral permanent congenital hearing impairment. There is a clear need for further research on long-term costs and outcomes to establish the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening in relation to other approaches to screening, and to establish whether it is a good long term investment., (Copyright © 2012 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neonatal hearing screening (NHS) has been routinely offered as a vital component of early childhood care in developed countries, whereas such a screening program is still at the pilot or preliminary stage as regards its nationwide implementation in developing countries. To provide significant evidence for health policy making in China, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of NHS program implementation in case of eight provinces of China., Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was conducted and all neonates annually born from 2007 to 2009 in eight provinces of China were simulated in this model. The model parameters were estimated from the established databases in the general hospitals or maternal and child health hospitals of these eight provinces, supplemented from the published literature. The model estimated changes in program implementation costs, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal screening compared to targeted screening in eight provinces., Results and Discussion: A multivariate sensitivity analysis was performed to determine uncertainty in health effect estimates and cost-effectiveness ratios using a probabilistic modeling technique. Targeted strategy trended to be cost-effective in Guangxi, Jiangxi, Henan, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Hebei, Shandong, and Beijing from the level of 9%, 9%, 8%, 4%, 3%, 7%, 5%, and 2%, respectively; while universal strategy trended to be cost-effective in those provinces from the level of 70%, 70%, 48%, 10%, 8%, 28%, 15%, 4%, respectively. This study showed although there was a huge disparity in the implementation of the NHS program in the surveyed provinces, both universal strategy and targeted strategy showed cost-effectiveness in those relatively developed provinces, while neither of the screening strategy showed cost-effectiveness in those relatively developing provinces. This study also showed that both strategies especially universal strategy achieve a good economic effect in the long term costs., Conclusions: Universal screening might be considered as the prioritized implementation goal especially in those relatively developed provinces of China as it provides the best health and economic effects, while targeted screening might be temporarily more realistic than universal screening in those relatively developing provinces of China.

Objective: Hearing impairment in children across the world constitutes a particularly serious obstacle to their optimal development and education, including language acquisition. Around 0.5-6 in every 1000 neonates and infants have congenital or early childhood onset sensorineural deafness or severe-to-profound hearing impairment, with significant consequences. Therefore, early detection is a vitally important element in providing appropriate support for deaf and hearing-impaired babies that will help them enjoy equal opportunities in society alongside all other children. This analysis estimates the costs and effectiveness of various interventions to screen infants at risk of hearing impairment., Methods: The economic analysis used a decision tree approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of newborn hearing screening strategies. Two unique models were built to capture different strategic screening decisions. Firstly, the cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) was compared to selective screening of newborns with risk factors. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness of providing a one-stage screening process vs. a two-stage screening process was investigated., Results: Two countries, the United Kingdom and India, were used as case studies to illustrate the likely cost outcomes associated with the various strategies to diagnose hearing loss in infants. In the UK, the universal strategy incurs a further cost of approximately £2.3 million but detected an extra 63 cases. An incremental cost per case detected of £36,181 was estimated. The estimated economic burden was substantially higher in India when adopting a universal strategy due to the higher baseline prevalence of hearing loss. The one-stage screening strategy accumulated an additional 13,480 and 13,432 extra cases of false-positives, in the UK and India respectively when compared to a two-stage screening strategy. This represented increased costs by approximately £1.3 million and INR 34.6 million., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of a screening intervention was largely dependent upon two key factors. As would be expected, the cost (per patient) of the intervention drives the model substantially, with higher costs leading to higher cost-effectiveness ratios. Likewise, the baseline prevalence (risk) of hearing impairment also affected the results. In scenarios where the baseline risk was low, the intervention was less likely to be cost-effective compared to when the baseline risk was high., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Germany the guideline for the hearing loss quantification and the resulting assessment of the reduction in earning capacity is the Königsteiner Merkblatt (KM). The quantification depends on the results of the tone and speech audiogram in silence. However, speech discrimination tests in noise may provide additional information about the impairment of the ENT patients. Especially, the impairment of persons with a slight hearing loss, characterized by high-frequency hearing loss, in noisy environment can not be indicated by the measurement in silence, which is proposed in the KM. METHODS UND PATIENTS: The Göttingen sentence test in noise was applied as a supplement to the routine ENT procedures of the medical estimate in 135 test persons. Based on these measurement results a table for the percentage hearing loss in noise is defined. Furthermore, an integration of the hearing loss in noise in the assessment of the reduction in earning capacity is proposed in addition to the hearing loss in silence., Results: Using the newly introduced hearing loss for speech in noise, a suitable assessment for persons with a slight hearing loss is achieved. By integrating it into the assessment procedure additionally to the hearing loss in silence, the hearing impairment of all patients can be rated depending on their speech test results in silence and in noise. In comparison to the results obtained by the KM, the new procedure does not lead to higher values for the proposed reduction in earning capacity in general, but instead seems to be equally suitable for all groups of patients.

Objective: Ascertain the status of early hearing detection and intervention services in Latin America., Methods: Between June and November 2007, Gallaudet University, in collaboration with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Diversity Committee, disseminated a survey to 11 Latin American countries. It included questions about newborn hearing screening (NHS) procedures, the availability of intervention services for infants with hearing loss, and challenges in identifying infants with hearing loss. In addition, a literature review was conducted to help identify the status of NHS efforts in Latin America., Results: Six countries (Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay) and one U.S. territory (Puerto Rico) responded to the survey. Responses indicated that efforts to identify infants with hearing loss vary within and across countries in Latin America. In some countries, activities have been implemented at a national level; in others, activities have been implemented at a single hospital or region within a country. Common barriers to implementation of NHS programs include a lack of funding, screening and diagnostic equipment, public awareness, and personnel qualified to work with infants and young children., Conclusions: In spite of several barriers, NHS programs have been implemented in at least some facilities and regions in Latin America. Additional efforts are needed to expand NHS activities in Latin America.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop a cost-effective and easy to use audiometer to monitor progressive hearing change in school-aged children., Design: The hardware of the audiometer developed included a computer, an external sound blaster and a headphone. The hearing screening software was developed to control the pure tone sound level with modulability in the range of 0-45 dB HL at 1, 2, 4 and 0.5 kHz frequencies. Thirty sixth-grade children, aged 12-13 years old, were randomly divided into two groups for a hearing test in a conference room. Testing for one group was performed by a person with experience and the other group was examined by a graduate student who was not familiar with the device. After the hearing test, all children were immediately screened using a clinical diagnostic audiometer in a soundproof room by an audiologist., Results: Most of the threshold dB values obtained by the audiometer in a conference room (55 ears, 93.2%) were significantly greater than those obtained by the clinical audiometer in a soundproof room. Most of the differences between these two measurements were within 5 dB (94.9%). Only 5.1% had a discrepancy within the maximum range of 10 dB. The correlation and intraclass correlation coefficients between the two measurements were 0.861 and 0.929, respectively. The results also indicated that the experience level of the screening personnel did not affect the testing., Conclusion: The newly developed audiometer is quite cost-effective and can be easily operated. The threshold dB values obtained by the audiometer developed in a conference room were comparable with the results of a clinical audiometer in a soundproof room. The audiometer developed could measure the hearing threshold values and, therefore, be useful in monitoring progressive hearing change in school-aged children.

Objective: The objective of the study is to investigate the results of the newborn hearing screening program carried out in a Public Hospital in Brazil, in the first 3 years regarding: (1) the prevalence of hearing impairment; (2) the influence of the universal hearing screening program on the age at which the diagnosis of hearing loss is defined; (3) the cost effectiveness of the program; (4) the outcomes, in terms of the age in which the hearing rehabilitation started., Methods: A descriptive study of the first 3 years after starting the universal newborn hearing screening in a Public Hospital of Bauru, São Paulo state, Brazil. The screening method consists of a two-stage screening approach with transient otoacoustic emissions (TOAE), conducted by an audiologist. If the outcome in the second-stage screening is REFER, the infant is submitted to diagnostic follow-up testing and intervention at the Audiology and Speech Pathology Clinic at the University of São Paulo, campus of Bauru. The evaluation of the costs of the universal newborn hearing screening program per each screened newborn (around 4000/year) was done based on a proposal by the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, of the Utah State University, United States of America., Results: 11,466 newborns were submitted to hearing screening, corresponding to 90.52% of the living newborns. The prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss was 0.96:1000. Of the 11 children with sensorineural hearing loss, eight children received hearing aids and five started the therapeutic process before the age of 1. Currently, four children between the ages of 11 months and 2 years old were submitted to cochlear implant surgery. The cost of hearing screening was US$7.00 and the annual cost of the universal newborn hearing screening program was US$26,940.47., Conclusion: The hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening carried out through the Brazilian National Health System is viable, with promising results. However, in a country such as Brazil, which presents large socio-economic differences, the same type of analyses should be performed in several regions, so as to take into account specific aspects, to implement the newborn hearing screening along with the Public System., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a need to develop affordable but effective audiometric screening equipment, particularly for use in low-income countries. With advances in computer technology, low-cost computer-based audiometer software has been developed. However, the efficacy of computer-based audiometers in hearing screening and diagnostic assessment requires investigation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a low-cost, computer-based audiometric system in a school-based hearing screening programme., Methods: Eighty children were screened using the computer-based audiometer and with a conventional pure tone screening audiometer. Overall refer rates, as well as frequency and age effects on the accuracy of the computer-based audiometer, were considered., Results: There was a significant relationship between the low-cost, computer-based audiometer and a conventional pure tone audiometer when a 40 dBHL refer criterion was used in school hearing screening and when test results at 500 Hz were excluded from analysis. However, background noise effects and software limitations in the computer-based system had major adverse effects on screening performance., Conclusions: The study results and preliminary practical experience with the system suggest that, with further software and hardware improvements, a low-cost, computer-based system may well be feasible for routine school screening in developing countries.

Newborn hearing screening is currently performed routinely in many regional health-care systems in Spain. Despite the remarkable expansion in newborn hearing screening since 2000, its feasibility and the benefits of early identification and intervention, many major challenges still remain. In this article, the Committee for the Early Detection of Hearing Loss (Comisión para la Detección Precoz de la Hipoacusia, CODEPEH) updates the recommendations that are considered important for the future development of early hearing detection and intervention (EDHI) systems in the following points: 1. Screening protocols: Separate protocols are recommended for NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Units) and well-infant nurseries. 2. Diagnostic audiology evaluation. Professionals with skills and expertise in evaluating newborn and young infants should provide diagnosis, selection and fitting of amplification devices. 3. Medical evaluation. Risk factors for congenital and acquired hearing loss have been combined in a single list rather than grouped by time of onset. A stepwise diagnostic paradigm is diagnostically more efficient and cost-effective than a simultaneous testing approach. 4. Early intervention and surveillance. All individuals providing services to infants with hearing loss should have specialized training and expertise in the development of audition, speech and language. Regular surveillance should be performed on developmental milestones, auditory skills, parental concerns, and middle ear status. 5. Quality control. Data management as part of an integrated system is important to monitor and improve the quality of EDHI services., (2009 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of a Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) programme in an Italian region., Methods: A cost analysis of a regional UNHS programme was carried out on 32,502 newborns. 31,992 (98.4%) were no audiological risk (NAR) subjects and 510 were babies with audiological risk (WAR) (1.6%). UNHS was performed on two levels. The first level involved otoacustic emission (OAE) testing on NAR subjects, while the second level involved auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing of WAR and of NAR with 2nd OAE Refer tests., Results: The cost of screening was 13.32 euro per screened NAR infant. The total cost (OAE+ABR) was 16.58 euro, spreading the cost over the whole NAR population. The total cost per screened infant in the WAR population was 415.9 euro. The average cost per detected case in the NAR population was 32,951 euro, while in the WAR population it was 11,303 euro., Conclusions: The cost of UNHS in our region is comparable to the cost per diagnosed case of other neonatal screening programmes, and it is justified when it allows us to intervene at an early stage. On the basis of both the cost of our regional screening programme and the incidence of hearing impairment, we can conclude that the cost-effectiveness of our programme has been demonstrated.

Objectives: Current protocols presumably use criteria that are chosen on the basis of the sensitivity and specificity rates they produce. Such an approach emphasizes test performance but does not include societal implications of the benefit of early identification. The purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate an approach to selecting criteria for use in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) programs that uses benefit-cost ratio (BCR) to demonstrate an alternative method to audiologists, administrators, and others involved in UNHS protocol decisions., Design: Existing data from more than 1200 ears were used to analyze BCR as a function of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission (DPOAE) level. These data were selected because both audiometric and DPOAE data were available on every ear. Although these data were not obtained in newborns, this compromise was necessary because audiometric outcomes (especially in infants with congenital hearing loss) in neonates are either lacking or limited in number. As such, it is important to note that the characteristics of responses from the group of subjects that formed the bases of the present analyses are different from those for neonates. This limits the extent to which actual criterion levels can be selected but should not affect the general approach of using BCR as a framework for considering UNHS criteria. Estimates of the prevalence of congenital hearing loss identified through UNHS in 37 states and U.S. territories in 2004 were used to calculate BCR. A range of estimates for the lifetime monetary benefits and yearly costs for UNHS were used, based on data available in the literature. Still, exact benefits and costs are difficult to know. Both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by automated auditory brainstem response, AABR) screening paradigms were considered in the calculation of BCR. The influence of middle ear effusion was simulated by incorporating a range of expected DPOAE level reductions into an additional BCR analyses, Results: Our calculations indicate that for a range of proposed benefit and cost estimates, the monetary benefits of both one-step (DPOAE alone) and two-step (DPOAE followed by AABR) NHS programs outweigh programmatic costs. Our calculations indicate that BCR is robust in that it can be applied regardless of the values that are assigned to benefit and cost. Maximum BCR was identified and remained stable regardless of these values; however, it was recognized that the use of maximum BCR could result in reduced test sensitivity and may not be optimal for use in UNHS programs. The inclusion of secondary AABR screening increases BCR but does not alter the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR occurs. The model of middle ear effusion reduces overall DPOAE level, subsequently lowering the DPOAE criterion level at which maximum BCR was obtained, Conclusion: BCR is one of several alternative methods for choosing UNHS criteria, in which the evaluation of costs and benefits allows clinical and societal considerations to be incorporated into the pass/refer decision in a meaningful way. Although some of the benefits of early identification of hearing impairment cannot be estimated through a monetary analysis, such as improved psychosocial development and quality of life, this article provides an alternative to audiologists and administrators for selecting UNHS protocols that includes consideration of societal implications of UNHS screening criteria. BCR suggests that UNHS is a worthwhile investment for society as benefits always outweigh costs, at least for the estimations included in this article. Although the use of screening criteria that maximize BCR results in lower test sensitivity compared with other criteria, BCR may be used to select criteria that result in increased test sensitivity and still provide a high, although not maximal, BCR. Using BCR analysis provides a framework in which the societal implications of NHS protocols are considered and emphasizes the value of UNHS.

In line with global progress towards early detection of permanent congenital and early-onset hearing loss (PCEHL), the costs and performance of hospital-based and community-based infant hearing screening models were evaluated in Lagos, Nigeria. The protocol consisted of two-stage screening with transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response followed by diagnostic evaluation for all infants referred after the second-stage screening. The main outcome measures were referral rates at screening, cost per baby screened, cost per case detected and yield for PCEHL. First-stage referrals were 32.2% for universal and 31.7% for targeted screening in the hospital, compared with 14.3% and 15.2%, respectively for the community-based programme. Second-stage referrals ranged from 3.3% under hospital-based universal screening to 4.9% under community-based targeted screening. The highest yields of 27.4 and 22.5 per 1000 were recorded under community-based targeted and universal screening, respectively. Screening cost per child was lowest (US$7.62) under community-based universal screening and highest (US$73.24) under hospital-based targeted screening. Similarly, cost per child detected with PCEHL was lowest (US$602.49) for community-based universal screening and highest (US$4631.33) for hospital-based targeted screening. Community-based universal screening of infants during routine immunisation clinics appears to be the most cost-effective model for early detection of PCEHL in low-income countries.

Background: The implementation of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) in Germany in 2009 requires a realistic cost calculation for health insurance companies and participating clinics, Material and Methods: Screening costs from 60 Hessian clinics were analyzed over 2.5 years whereby 94,203 children had been screened either with a 2-step (TEOAE, AABR) or a 1-step procedure (AABR)., Results: The TEOAE-AABR screening at EUR 13.16 per child was more cost-efficient. For a population with a high rate of at-risk babies a sole AABR device with screening costs of EUR 16.87 presents a more efficient alternative. High quality of screening performance and qualification of screening staff markedly reduced total cost. Overhead costs for tracking, quality assurance, control of completeness, and securing structural screening requirements, considered as essential screening costs, were calculated at EUR 4.00 per child. The total costs in Hesse would therefore be EUR 17.16 per child for TEOAE-AABR screening and EUR 20.87 per child for an AABR screening., Conclusion: In a mixed calculation which can be cautiously extrapolated from the Hessian data for Germany as a whole, costs would be EUR 18.40 per registered child.

Objectives: Our objective was to elicit patient preferences for transferring elements of hearing aid provision from the medical sector [Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists and audiological centers] to private hearing aid dispensers, and to understand the trade-offs between different elements of hearing aid provision., Design: A discrete choice experiment was administered from 150 hearing-impaired persons in the Netherlands. Mean age was 71 (range 18-95) and 57% were male., Results: Participants preferred the initial assessment at the dispenser, higher accuracy in identifying persons in need of medical care, shorter duration of the total hearing aid provision, and a follow-up at the ENT specialist. They required compensation of at least euro 17 per 2 mo extra duration, euro 54 for an initial assessment at the ENT specialist, euro 119 per 10% decrease in accuracy, and euro 227 to forgo the follow-up at the ENT specialist. Preferences were influenced by sex, age, educational level, and experience with hearing aid provision., Conclusions: Hearing-impaired persons are receptive to transferring elements of hearing aid provision from the medical sector to private dispensers. Although safety and efficiency issues should also be considered, from the present study we can conclude that in the organization of hearing aid provision hearing-impaired persons prefer an initial assessment at a private dispenser when the dispenser is at least 95% as accurate as the ENT specialist, and prefer a follow-up visit at the ENT specialist.

Objective: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure., Materials and Methods: From 2001 to 2003, all the newborns in our health area (2454 infants) were evaluated with TEOAE (ILO92, otodynamics) and all those born from 2004 to 2006 (3117) were evaluated with AABR (AccuScreen, Fischer-Zoth). The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old., Results: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant., Conclusions: Although AABR screening tests involve a slightly higher cost in time and money than TEOAE, the results obtained compensate this difference. AABR gives fewer false positives and a lower referral rate; the percent of infants lost during follow-up is consequently smaller. Therefore, in our environment, universal newborn auditory screening with AABR is more effective than that with TEOAE.

In the present paper, the authors report the results of the Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) project at the University Hospital of Ferrara. A total of 6,759 full-term newborns and a total of 1,016 NICU babies were tested at the University Hospital of Ferrara, from January 2000 to December 2006. The paper presents information from clinically acceptable screening procedures developed and tested during the 6 years of the program and addresses two questions pertinent to hearing screening: (i) the cost-estimate of a UNHS program based on European economical and administration premises and (ii) the development of a database-structure for the evaluation of the UNHS/NHS performance and the individual patient tracking.

Objective: This study evaluated an alternative transient evoked otoacoustic emissions method for screening hearing in newborn babies that may reduce the referral rate of initial screening., Methods: A total of 1,033 neonates (2,066 ears) from two hospitals were recruited. Subjects had their hearing screened in both ears using a combined approach-both click evoked OAEs (CEOAEs) and 1kHz tone burst evoked OAEs (TBOAEs)., Results: 1kHz TBOAEs were more robust than CEOAEs in terms of emission response level and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at both 1 and 1.5kHz frequency bands. The prevalence rate for CEOAE and TBOAE responses in these two frequency bands was significantly different. The combined protocol significantly reduced the referral rate-by almost 2 percentage points for first time screening., Conclusions: The implementation of a combined 1kHz TBOAE/CEOAE screening protocol is a feasible and effective way to reduce referral rates, and hence false positive rates, in neonatal hearing screening programs.

Unlabelled: This presentation of the public health impact of hearing impairment highlights the important elements of interaction between the disability and community., Objectives: Retrospective study to identify the size of the problem of hearing loss, illustrating not only the magnitude but also the serious effect of the lack of reliable data concerning this matter. It highlights the challenges met within a mid-economy community regarding the handling of the impact of the disability. The Egyptian data is given as an example of the situation in a mid-economy community., Study Design: A brief introduction of some epidemiological factors of hearing impairment is presented including the size of the problem in Egypt. Data of the neonatal hearing screening program of the Audiology Unit, Ain Shams University, is presented. The impact of the disability is then discussed in relation to the age of onset and the degree and type of hearing loss. This is followed by the description of the nature and effect of the disability in the different age groups. A discussion of the various factors that may modify the capability of the community to deal with such disability follows. This includes various economic indices with their possible limitations on the part of the community. Such a briefing illustrates the challenges met in the rehabilitation of the deaf and the hearing-impaired in a developing mid-economy country. The broad lines of the management of the problem both at the prophylactic as well as the rehabilitative levels are discussed. A final remark on recommendations and possible future development in a developing country is presented., (Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Sub-Saharan Africa not only has the highest rates of neonatal, infant, and child mortality worldwide but also accounts for a significant proportion of the global burden of permanent congenital and early-onset hearing loss (PCEHL). This article explores the diverse psychosocial, educational, and economic consequences of PCEHL in the region and highlights the interrelationships between this condition and the crucial domains of early childhood development. It also examines relevant levels of prevention and current practices within the context of the birthing patterns and routine immunization schedules in the first three months of life. It presents practical options for addressing the needs of children with PCEHL and their parents against the backdrop of the prevailing health and socioeconomic conditions. It concludes by underscoring the crucial dimensions of culturally-sensitive interventions as well as the need for ear-care professionals in each country to take advantage of the growing global initiatives for hearing impairment prevention within a multidisciplinary framework to advance the best interests of the affected children and their families.

Objectives: To show that hearing loss has such a high prevalence in the older population to justify screening, if effective and acceptable methods are available; and that population take-up and benefit can make a measurable outcome difference in quality of life., Design: A population study of people aged 55-74 years was undertaken. A clinical effectiveness study of differently organised screening programmes was carried out using a controlled trial to identify those who might benefit from intervention (and the extent of the benefit). A retrospective case-control study examined the very long-term (more than 10 years) compliance of patients in using their hearing aids after early identification and determined the extent to which early-identified hearing-impaired people have better outcomes than equivalent people identified later. An examination of the costs and cost-effectiveness of different potential screening programmes was also undertaken., Setting: A population study was designed in the UK, with specific stages being conducted in more depth on a sample of people from Nottingham and Southampton. The clinical effectiveness study was conducted in general practices in Nottingham and Bath using a systematic or opportunistic screen. The retrospective case-control study compared a group of early-identified hearing aid users, with control matched for age, gender and occupation, in Cardiff, Glasgow and Manchester., Participants: In Great Britain responses were obtained for 34,362 individuals from the postal questionnaire as part of a population study, 506 were interviewed, 351 were assessed for benefit from amplification and 87 were fitted with a hearing aid. The clinical effectiveness study received 1461 replies from the first-stage questionnaire screen, with 306 people assessed in the clinic, of whom 156 were fitted with hearing aids. The retrospective case-control study traced 116 previously fitted hearing aid users, who had been identified by a screen, and then conducted a case-control using 50 of these for whom complete data were available, matching with two control groups of 50 people., Interventions: The major prospective interventions were to introduce amplification through offering people, with minimal hearing impairment, hearing aid(s) in a rehabilitative setting. In the population study, aids were offered as a monaural in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid and in the clinical effectiveness study people who met the criteria were randomised to be offered two different ITE hearing aids to be fitted bilaterally. The retrospective case-control study used unilateral and bilateral hearing aids., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of hearing problems and degree to which services meet need in 55-74-year age group. Public acceptability and individual benefits of hearing screening and intervention as a function of demographic and hearing domain-specific characteristics. Improvement in quality of life. Screening costs and cost-effectiveness as a function of proposed programmes., Results: It was found that 12% of people aged 55-74 years have a hearing problem that causes moderate or severe worry, annoyance or upset, 14% have a bilateral hearing impairment of at least 35 dB hearing level (HL) and only 3% currently receive intervention, through the use of hearing aids. Good amplification was shown to benefit about one in four of this 55-74-year-old population and the degree of hearing loss predicted benefit well. Overall, there was a strong correlation between benefit from amplification and from using hearing aids. Questionnaires and audiometric screens gave good screening operating characteristics. The systematic screening programme was more acceptable and gave a better response than the opportunistic. About 70% of those who were offered an aid accepted a bilateral fitting. This increased to 95% for those with > or =35 dB HL (averaged over 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in the better ear). The retrospective case-control study showed that long-term hearing aid use was low, unless hearing impairment was quite high (e.g. >35 dB HL). Those identified early had greater benefit through additional years of use/better adaptation to use than those of the same age and hearing impairment who were fitted with hearing aids later. Different screening programmes were modelled. The 35 dB HL better ear average hearing impairment level was found to be a good, robust and justifiable target group for screening and here the most efficient and practicable method was to use two questions in primary care concerning hearing problems and a hearing screen using a pure tone at 3 kHz 35 dB HL. The average cost of the screening programme was 13 pounds per person screened or about 100 pounds if treatment costs were included. Making the conservative assumption that identification gives an extra 9 years using hearing aids, the costs of screening and intervention were in the range of 800-1000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year when using the Health Utilities Index and about 2500 pounds using the Short Form 6 Dimensions metric., Conclusions: A simple systematic screen, using an audiometric screening instrument, has been shown to be acceptable to people in the age range 55-74 years, is likely to provide substantial benefit and may be cost-effective to those in that target group. Hearing screening appears to meet the National Screening Committee's criteria in most respects, provided screening is targeted at those with at least 35 dB HL better ear average. Based on the research carried out here there is sufficient evidence to support a larger and more definitive study of hearing screening. Further research into who should be referred for and benefit from audiological assessment and provision of hearing aid in a primary care trust setting is needed as is investigation into screening devices and the various aspects of introducing such a programme.

Objectives: To describe and analyse in detail current practice of school entry hearing screening (SES) in the UK., Data Sources: Main electronic databases were searched up to May 2005., Review Methods: A national postal questionnaire survey was addressed to all leads for SES in the UK, considering current practice in terms of implementation, protocols, target population and performance data. Primary data from cohort studies in one area of London were examined. A systematic review of alternative SES tests, test performance and impact on outcomes was carried out. Finally, a review of published studies on costs, plus economic modelling of current and alternative programmes was prepared., Results: The survey suggested that SES is used in most of England, Wales and Scotland; just over 10% of respondents have abandoned the screen; others are awaiting national guidance. Coverage of SES is variable, but is often over 90% for children in state schools. Referral rates are variable, with a median of about 8%. The test used for the screen is the pure tone sweep test but with wide variation in implementation, with differing frequencies, pass criteria and retest protocols; written examples of protocols were often poor and ambiguous. There is no national approach to data collection, audit and quality assurance, and there are variable approaches at local level. The screen is performed in less than ideal test conditions and resources are often limited, which has an impact on the quality of the screen. The primary cohort studies show that the prevalence of permanent childhood hearing loss continues to increase through infancy. Of the 3.47 in 1000 children with a permanent hearing loss at school screen age, 1.89 in 1000 required identification after the newborn screen. Newborn hearing screening is likely to reduce significantly the yield of SES for permanent bilateral and unilateral hearing impairments; yield had fallen from about 1.11 in 1000 before newborn screening to about 0.34 in 1000 for cohorts that had had newborn screening, of which only 0.07 in 1000 were unilateral impairments. Just under 20% of permanent moderate or greater bilateral, mild bilateral and unilateral impairments, known to services as 6-year-olds or older, remained to be identified around the time of school entry. No good-quality published comparative trials of alternative screens or tests for SES were identified and studies concerned with the relative accuracy of alternative tests are difficult to compare and often flawed by differing referral criteria and case definitions; with full pure tone audiometry as the reference test, the pure tone sweep test appears to have high sensitivity and high specificity for minimal, mild and greater hearing impairments, better than alternative tests for which evidence was identified. There is insufficient evidence regarding possible harm of the screen. There were no published studies identified that examined the possible effects of SES on longer term outcomes. No good-quality published economic evaluations of SES were identified and a universal SES based on pure tone sweep tests was associated with higher costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no screen and other screen alternatives; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for such a screen is around 2500 pounds per QALY gained; the range of expected costs, QALYs and net benefits was broad, indicating a considerable degree of uncertainty. Targeted screening could be more cost-effective than universal school entry screening; however, the lack of primary data and the wide limits for variables in the modelling mean that any conclusions must be considered indicative and exploratory only. A national screening programme for permanent hearing impairment at school entry meets all but three of the criteria for a screening programme, but at least six criteria are not met for screening for temporary hearing impairment., Conclusions: The lack of good-quality evidence in this area remains a serious problem. Services should improve quality and audit screen performance for identification of previously unknown permanent hearing impairment, pending evidence-based policy decisions based on the research recommendations. Further research is needed into a number of important areas including the evaluation of an agreed national protocol for services delivering SES to make future studies and audits of screen performance more directly comparable.