Newborn Hearing Screening Benefits Children, but Global Disparities Persist.

There is substantial evidence that newborn hearing screening (NHS) reduces the negative sequelae of permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) if performed in programs that aim to screen all newborns in a region or nation (often referred to as Universal Newborn Hearing Screening or UNHS). The World Health Organization (WHO) has called in two resolutions for the implementation of such programs and for the collection of large-scale data. To assess the global status of NHS programs we surveyed individuals potentially involved with newborn and infant hearing screening (NIHS) in 196 countries/territories (in the following text referred to as countries). Replies were returned from 158 countries. The results indicated that 38% of the world's newborns and infants had no or minimal hearing screening and 33% screened at least 85% of the babies (hereafter referred to as UNHS). Hearing screening programs varied considerably in quality, data acquisition, and accessibility of services for children with PCHL. In this article, we summarize the main results of the survey in the context of several recent WHO publications, particularly the World Report on Hearing, which defined advances in the implementation of NHS programs in the Member States as one of three key indicators of worldwide progress in ear and hearing care (EHC).

The Pathogenesis, Assessment and Treatment of Speech Fluency Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1% of children and adolescents, 0.2% of women, and 0.8% of men suffer from stuttering, and lesser numbers from cluttering. Persistent speech fluency disorders often cause lifelong problems in communication and social participation. METHODS: In an interdisciplinary, evidence and consensus based clinical practice guideline, the current understanding of the nature, identification, diagnosis, and treatment of stuttering and cluttering was summarized. A systematic review of the literature was carried out to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for stuttering. Evidence is lacking on the etiology, pathogenesis, evaluation, and treatment of cluttering. RESULTS: In view of the fact that common (developmental, idiopathic) stuttering is associated with structural and functional changes of the brain, the guideline recommends that it should be called "originary neurogenic non-syndromic stuttering." Heritability estimates for this disorder range from 70% to over 80%. For preschool children, the Lidcombe therapy has the best evidence of efficacy (Cohen's d = 0.72-1.00). There is also strong evidence for an indirect treatment approach. For children aged 6 to 12, there is no solid evidence for the efficacy of any treatment. For adolescents and adults, there is good evidence with high effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.75-1.63) for speech restructuring methods such as fluency shaping; weak evidence with intermediate effect sizes for stuttering modification (Cohen's d = 0.56-0.65); and weak evidence for combined speech restructuring and stuttering modification. The evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapy, rhythmic speaking, or breathing regulation as the sole or main form of treatment, or that of hypnosis or eclectic, unspecified stuttering therapies. CONCLUSION: Stuttering is often treated in Germany with therapies for which there is inadequate evidence, and the initiation of treatment is often unnecessarily delayed. The guideline presents treatment methods whose efficacy is supported by the current evidence.

The effectiveness of stuttering treatments in Germany.

PURPOSE: Persons who stutter (PWS) should be referred to the most effective treatments available, locally or regionally. A prospective comparison of the effects of the most common stuttering treatments in Germany is not available. Therefore, a retrospective evaluation by clients of stuttering treatments was carried out. METHOD: The five most common German stuttering treatments (231 single treatment cases) were rated as to their perceived effectiveness, using a structured questionnaire, by 88 PWS recruited through various sources. The participants had received between 1 and 7 treatments for stuttering. RESULTS: Two stuttering treatments (stuttering modification, fluency shaping) showed favorable and three treatments (breathing therapy, hypnosis, unspecified logopedic treatment) showed unsatisfactory effectiveness ratings. The effectiveness ratings of stuttering modification and fluency shaping did not differ significantly. The three other treatments were equally ineffective. The differences between the effective and ineffective treatments were of large effect sizes. The typical therapy biography begins in childhood with an unspecified logopedic treatment administered extensively in single and individual sessions. Available comparisons showed intensive or interval treatments to be superior to extensive treatments, and group treatments to be superior to single client treatments. CONCLUSION: The stuttering treatment most often prescribed in Germany, namely a weekly session of individual treatment by a speech-language pathologist, usually with an assorted package of mostly unknown components, is of limited effectiveness. Better effectiveness can be expected from fluency shaping or stuttering modification approaches, preferably with an intensive time schedule and with group sessions. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: Readers will be able to: (a) discuss the five most prevalent stuttering treatments in Germany; (b) summarize the effectiveness of these treatments; and (c) describe structural treatment components that seem to be preferable across different kinds of treatments.

Health and human services for persons who stutter and education of logopedists in East-European countries.

UNLABELLED: The International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) assessed the therapy status of fluency disorders, service opportunities, and education of logopedists (speech-language pathologists) with a mail survey in Eastern Europe. Information was collected on the following aspects: incidence, prevalence, availability of information, non-therapeutic support for persons who stutter (PWS), providers of diagnostics and therapy, cooperating professionals, therapy approaches, forms, goals, financing, early detection and prevention, training of professionals, specialization in stuttering therapy, needs for improving the situation of PWS, and problems which hinder better care. Stuttering therapy for children is available in many countries and is frequently provided by the educational system. Therapy for adults is provided best by the health services but is not satisfactorily available everywhere. Modern therapeutic approaches coexist with obsolete ones. Lack of resources, awareness, entitlement, and assessment of therapy effectiveness are pervasive problems. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: Readers will be able to describe and evaluate: (1) the therapy status of fluency disorders and service opportunities in various East-European countries; (2) the training of logopedists (speech-language pathologists); (3) specialization in stuttering therapy; and (4) the organizational services for PWS within the health and human service systems.

Effectiveness and efficiency of a universal newborn hearing screening in Germany.

The decision to mandate, finance, and implement a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) requires the evaluation of its therapy-directed benefit by comparing (1) a procedure employing a UNHS with (2) a targeted screening for at-risk babies for neonatal hearing disorders and (3) a procedure without systematic screening. In a cohort study the outcome of the UNHS program of Hessen in 2005 with 17,439 screened newborns was analyzed. Validity, effectiveness, and efficiency were evaluated and compared to a sample of 98 Hessian and 355 German children who were detected in 2005 as hearing-impaired but not by an UNHS. The UNHS group had a PASS rate of 97.0%. Forty-nine hearing-impaired children were diagnosed at a median age of 3.1 months and treated at a median age of 3.5 months. Corresponding values for the Hessian non-UNHS group were 17.8 and 21.0 months. For Germany the median age at diagnosis was 39.0 months. The age at therapy onset correlated negatively with parameters of speech/language and psychosocial development. A targeted screening would have resulted in a low sensitivity of 65.3%. Hence, a UNHS is the most effective way to an early therapy of neonatal hearing disorders with an optimal outcome.