Neonatal hearing screening with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions--retrospective analysis on performance parameters

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Background

An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.

Methods

Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.

Results

Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.

Conclusion

Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03218-0.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Hearing Screening Programs: A Micro-Simulation Modeling Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Early detection of neonatal hearing impairment moderates the negative effects on speech and language development. Universal neonatal hearing screening protocols vary in tests used, timing of testing and the number of stages of screening. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of various protocols in the preparation of implementation of neonatal hearing screening in Albania.

Does the involvement of first-year residents have a negative impact on the performance of a newborn hearing screening program?

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficiency of our hearing screening program, prior to hospital discharge, together with the consistency of our teamwork including first year residents by assessing a learning curve for the operators involved.

METHODS

We evaluated all the data collected during the first stage of the screening program of all non-NICU neonates from March 2009 to July 2013, analyzing by means of a linear regression model, the monthly referral rate for the whole period of activity of each group of residents.

RESULTS

performances of each group of screeners were statistically different (chi square test p < 0.005). The nptrend test showed that group 2 (p = 0.01) and group 4 (p = 0.01) reached a statistical significance in higher and lower referral rates respectively. No statistical differences were found in other groups (Group 1 p = 0.161; Group 3 p = 0.853).

CONCLUSION

Despite a statistically significant difference in the performances between the groups of residents, the referral rates for each group (range 6.18%-9.29%) and the overall referral rate for the whole period (7.84%) agree with the values commonly reported for TEOAEs in the literature. It means that our screening program is reasonably effective despite a yearly turnover of operators.