Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Call to Action.

This Call to Action is the eighth and final article in this special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. Collectively, these articles highlight evidence-informed actions to enhance family well-being and to optimize developmental outcomes among children who are DHH. This Call to Action outlines actionable steps to advance FCEI-DHH supports provided to children who are DHH and their families. It also urges specific actions to strengthen FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems across the globe, whether newly emerging or long-established. Internationally, supports for children who are DHH are often siloed, provided within various independent sectors such as health/medicine, education, early childhood, and social and disability services. With this Call to Action, we urge invested parties from across relevant sectors to join together to implement and improve FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems, build the capacity of early intervention (EI) Providers and other professionals, extend research regarding FCEI-DHH, and fund EI supports, systems, and research, all with the aim of advancing outcomes for families and their children who are DHH.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Methods.

This is the fourth article in a series of eight that comprise a special issue on family-centered early intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, FCEI-DHH. This article describes the co-production team and the consensus review method used to direct the creation of the 10 Principles described in this special issue. Co-production is increasingly being used to produce evidence that is useful, usable, and used. A draft set of 10 Principles for FCEI-DHH and associated Tables of recommended behaviors were developed using the knowledge creation process. Principles were refined through two rounds of eDelphi review. Results for each round were analyzed using measures of overall group agreement and measures that indicated the extent to which the group members agreed with each other. After Round 2, with strong agreement and low to moderate variation in extent of agreement, consensus was obtained for the 10 Principles for FCEI-DHH presented in this special issue. This work can be used to enhance evolution of FCEI-DHH program/services and systems world-wide and adds to knowledge in improvement science.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Support Principles.

This article is the sixth in a series of eight articles that comprise a special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. The Support Principles article is the second of three articles that describe the 10 Principles of FCEI-DHH, preceded by the Foundation Principles, and followed by the Structure Principles, all in this special issue. The Support Principles are composed of four Principles (Principles 3, 4, 5, and 6) that highlight (a) the importance of a variety of supports for families raising children who are DHH; (b) the need to attend to and ensure the well-being of all children who are DHH; (c) the necessity of building the language and communication abilities of children who are DHH and their family members; and (d) the importance of considering the family's strengths, needs, and values in decision-making.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Cultural & Global Implications.

This article is the third in a series of eight articles that comprise this special issue on family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families (FCEI-DHH). It highlights the origins of FCEI-DHH in Western contexts and well-resourced locations and emphasizes the role of culture(s) in shaping FCEI-DHH. This article also cautions against the direct application of the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles presented in this issue across the globe without consideration of cultural implications. Cultural perceptions of decision-making processes and persons who can be decision-makers in FCEI-DHH are explored. Deaf culture(s) and the benefits of exposure to DHH adults with diverse backgrounds are introduced. Structural inequities that impact families' access to FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems, within and among nations and regions, are noted. The need to consider the cultural influences on families is emphasized; this applies to all levels of FCEI, including the development of systems through implementation of supports.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Foundation Principles.

This article is the fifth in a series of eight articles that comprise a special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. The 10 FCEI-DHH Principles are organized conceptually into three sections (a) Foundation Principles, (b) Support Principles, and (c) Structure Principles. Collectively, they describe the essential Principles that guide FCEI for children who are DHH and their families. This article describes the Foundation Principles (Principles 1 and Principle 2). The Foundation Principles emphasize the essential elements of ensuring that families with children who are DHH can access early intervention (EI) and other appropriate supports, as well as highlight the need for provision of EI that is family-centered. Implementation of these FCEI-DHH Principles is intended to improve the lives and the outcomes of children who are DHH and their families around the globe.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Introduction.

This article is the first of eight articles in this special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), or FCEI-DHH. In 2013, a diverse panel of experts published an international consensus statement on evidence-based Principles guiding FCEI-DHH. Those original Principles have been revised through a coproduction process involving multidisciplinary collaborators and an international consensus panel, utilizing the best available evidence and current understanding of how to optimally support children who are DHH and their families. This revision (referred to as expanded Principles) was motivated by the need to incorporate (a) input from family leaders and DHH leaders, (b) broader international and cultural perspectives, (c) new empirical evidence, and (d) research in human development. This Introduction provides an overview of the rationale, purposes, and main content areas to be addressed throughout the special issue.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Structure Principles.

This article is the seventh in a series of eight articles that comprise a special issue on family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families, or FCEI-DHH. This article, Structure Principles, is the third of three articles (preceded by Foundation Principles and Support Principles) that describe the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles. The Structure Principles include 4 Principles (Principle 7, Principle 8, Principle 9, and Principle 10) that highlight (a) the importance of trained and effective Early Intervention (EI) Providers, (b) the need for FCEI-DHH teams to work collaboratively to support families, (c) the considerations for tracking children's progress through developmental assessment, and (d) the essential role of progress monitoring to continuously improve systems.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Guiding Values.

This article is the second of eight articles in this special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. Five foundational values that guide FCEI-DHH are described, providing an evidence-informed, conceptual context for the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles and other articles presented in this issue. These values are applicable for Early Intervention (EI) Providers and other professionals on FCEI teams, as well as for FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems. The five key values include (1) being family-centered, (2) responding to diversity, (3) involving invested parties, especially families and individuals who are DHH, (4) supporting holistic child development, and (5) ensuring fundamental human rights. These evidence-informed values are considered essential to the effective provision of FCEI-DHH supports.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of a newborn hearing screening programme; usability and pitfalls.

OBJECTIVE: The EUSCREEN project concerns the study of European vision and hearing screening programmes. Part of the project was the development of a cost-effectiveness model to analyse such programmes. We describe the development and usability of an online tool to enable stakeholders to design, analyse or modify a newborn hearing screening (NHS) programme. DESIGN: Data from literature, from existing NHS programmes, and observations by users were used to develop and refine the tool. Required inputs include prevalence of the hearing impairment, test sequence and its timing, attendance, sensitivity, and specificity of each screening step. Outputs include the number of cases detected and the costs of screening and diagnostics. STUDY SAMPLE: Eleven NHS programmes with reliable data. RESULTS: Three analyses are presented, exploring the effect of low attendance, number of screening steps, testing in the maternity ward, or screening at a later age, on the benefits and costs of the programme. Knowledge of the epidemiology of a staged screening programme is crucial when using the tool. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a tool intended to aid stakeholders to design a new or analyse an existing hearing screening programme in terms of benefits and costs.

Implementation of Newborn Hearing Screening in Albania.

Newborn hearing screening (NHS) was implemented in Albania in four maternity hospitals in 2018 and 2019. Implementation outcome, screening outcome, and screening quality measures were evaluated. Infants were first screened by midwives and nurses before discharge from the maternity hospital and returned for follow-up screening. Acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, coverage, attendance, and stepwise and final-referral rates were assessed by onsite observations, interviews, questionnaires, and a screening database. A post hoc analysis was performed to identify reasons for loss to follow up (LTFU) in a multivariate logistic regression. In total, 22,818 infants were born, of which 96.6% were screened. For the second screening step, 33.6% of infants were LTFU, 40.4% for the third, and 35.8% for diagnostic assessment. Twenty-two (0.1%) were diagnosed with hearing loss of ≥40 dB, six unilateral. NHS was appropriate and feasible: most infants are born in maternity hospitals, hence nurses and midwives could perform screening, and screening rooms and logistic support were supplied. Adoption among screeners was good. Referral rates decreased steadily, reflecting increasing skill. Occasionally, screening was repeated during a screening step, contrary to the protocol. NHS in Albania was implemented successfully, though LTFU was high. It is important to have effective data tracking and supervision throughout the screening.

Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.

OBJECTIVE: For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS: The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.

Assessment of hearing screening programmes across 47 countries or regions III: provision of childhood hearing screening after the newborn period.

OBJECTIVE: To inventory provision and features of childhood hearing screening after the newborn period (CHS), primarily in Europe. DESIGN: From each participating country or region, experts provided information through an extensive questionnaire: implementation year, age at screening, test method, pass criteria, screening location, screener profession, and quality indicators: coverage, referral, follow-up and detection rates, supplemented by literature sources. STUDY SAMPLE: Forty-two European countries or regions, plus Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India, and China. RESULTS: CHS was performed universally with pure-tone audiometry screening (PTS) in 17 countries or regions, whereas non-universal CHS was performed in eight with PTS or whisper tests. All participating countries with universal PTS had newborn hearing screening. Coverage rate was provided from three countries, detection rate from one, and referral and follow-up rate from two. In four countries, universal PTS was performed at two ages. Earliest universal PTS was performed in a (pre)school setting by nurses (n = 9, median age: 5 years, range: 3-7), in a healthcare setting by doctors and nurses (n = 7, median age: 4.5 years, range: 4-7), or in both (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Within universal CHS, PTS was mostly performed at 4-6 years by nurses. Insufficient collection of data and monitoring with quality indicators impedes evaluation of screening.

Assessment of hearing screening programmes across 47 countries or regions II: coverage, referral, follow-up and detection rates from newborn hearing screening.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of newborn hearing screening (NHS) programmes, through selected quality measures and their relationship to protocol design. DESIGN: NHS coverage, referral, follow-up and detection rates were aggregated. Referral rates were compared to age at screening step 1, number of steps, and test method: OAE or aABR. STUDY SAMPLE: A questionnaire on existing hearing screening was completed by experts from countries in Europe, plus Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. RESULTS: Out of 47 countries or regions, NHS coverage rates were reported from 26, referral rates from 23, follow up from 12 and detection rates from 13. Median coverage rate for step 1 was 96%. Referral rate from step 1 was 6-22% where screening may be performed <24 h from birth, 2-15% for >24 h, and 4% for >72 h. Referral rates to diagnostic assessment averaged 2.1% after one to two steps using OAE only, 1.7% after two steps including aABR, and 0.8% after three to four steps including aABR. Median detection rate for bilateral permanent hearing impairment ≥40dB was 1 per 1000 infants. CONCLUSION: Referral rates were related to age, test method and number of screening steps. Quality measures were not available for many NHS programmes.

Assessment of hearing screening programmes across 47 countries or regions I: provision of newborn hearing screening.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) varies regarding number and type of tests, location, age, professionals and funding. We compared the provision of existing screening programmes. DESIGN: A questionnaire containing nine domains: demography, administration, existing screening, coverage, tests, diagnosis, treatment, cost and adverse effects, was presented to hearing screening experts. Responses were verified. Clusters were identified based on number of screening steps and use of OAE or aABR, either for all infants or for well and high-risk infants (dual-protocol). STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-two experts completed the questionnaire sufficiently: 40 European countries, Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China. RESULTS: It took considerable effort to find experts for all countries with sufficient time and knowledge. Data essential for evaluation are often not collected. Infants are first screened in maternity wards in most countries. Human development index and health expenditure were high among countries with dual protocols, three screening steps, including aABR, and low among countries without NHS and countries using OAE for all infants. Nationwide implementation of NHS took 6 years, on average. CONCLUSION: The extent and complexity of NHS programmes are primarily related to health expenditure and HDI. Data collection should be improved to facilitate comparison of NHS programmes across borders.

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

OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: A micro-simulation model was developed using input on demography, natural history of neonatal hearing impairment, screening characteristics and treatment. Parameter values were derived from a review of the literature and expert opinion. We simulated multiple protocols using otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (aABR), varying the test type, timing and number of stages. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed over a life-time horizon. RESULTS: The two best protocols for well infants were OAE followed by aABR (i.e., two-stage OAE-aABR) testing in the maternity ward and single-aABR testing. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €4181 and €78,077 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Single-aABR screening led to more cases being detected compared to a two-stage screening program. However, it also resulted in higher referral rates, which increased the total costs of diagnostics. Multi-staged screening decreased referral rates but may increase the number of missed cases due to false-negative test results and nonattendance. CONCLUSIONS: Only the 2-stage OAE-aABR (maternity ward) protocol was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,413 for Albania, as suggested by the World Health Organization, and was found to be cost-effective. This study is among the few to assess neonatal hearing screening programs over a life-time horizon and the first to predict the cost-effectiveness of multiple screening scenarios.

Global Burden of Childhood Epilepsy, Intellectual Disability, and Sensory Impairments.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of children and adolescents with disabilities worldwide are needed to inform global intervention under the disability-inclusive provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals. We sought to update the most widely reported estimate of 93 million children <15 years with disabilities from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2004. METHODS: We analyzed Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 data on the prevalence of childhood epilepsy, intellectual disability, and vision or hearing loss and on years lived with disability (YLD) derived from systematic reviews, health surveys, hospital and claims databases, cohort studies, and disease-specific registries. Point estimates of the prevalence and YLD and the 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the estimates were assessed. RESULTS: Globally, 291.2 million (11.2%) of the 2.6 billion children and adolescents (95% UI: 249.9-335.4 million) were estimated to have 1 of the 4 specified disabilities in 2017. The prevalence of these disabilities increased with age from 6.1% among children aged <1 year to 13.9% among adolescents aged 15 to 19 years. A total of 275.2 million (94.5%) lived in low- and middle-income countries, predominantly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The top 10 countries accounted for 62.3% of all children and adolescents with disabilities. These disabilities accounted for 28.9 million YLD or 19.9% of the overall 145.3 million (95% UI: 106.9-189.7) YLD from all causes among children and adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The number of children and adolescents with these 4 disabilities is far higher than the 2004 estimate, increases from infancy to adolescence, and accounts for a substantial proportion of all-cause YLD.

Implementation of a neonatal hearing screening programme in three provinces in Albania.

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.

Best practices in family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: an international consensus statement.

A diverse panel of experts convened in Bad Ischl, Austria, in June of 2012 for the purpose of coming to consensus on essential principles that guide family-centered early intervention with children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH). The consensus panel included parents, deaf professionals, early intervention program leaders, early intervention specialists, and researchers from 10 nations. All participants had expertise in working with families of children who are D/HH, and focus was placed on identifying family-centered practice principles that are specific to partnering with these families. Panel members reported that the implementation of family-centered principles was uneven or inconsistent in their respective nations. During the consensus meeting, they identified 10 agreed-upon foundational principles. Following the conference, they worked to refine the principles and to develop a document that described the principles themselves, related program and provider behaviors, and evidence supporting their use (drawing upon studies from multiple disciplines and nations). The goal of this effort was to promote widespread implementation of validated, evidence-based principles for family-centered early intervention with children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their families.

Informed choice and deaf children: underpinning concepts and enduring challenges.

This article concerns the first stage of a research and development project that aimed to produce both parent and professional guidelines on the promotion and provision of informed choice for families with deaf children. It begins with a theoretical discussion of the problems associated with the concept of informed choice and deaf child services and then focuses specifically on why a metastudy approach was employed to address both the overcontextualized debate about informed choice when applied to deaf children and the problems associated with its investigation in practice with families and professionals. It presents a detailed analysis of the conceptual relevance of a range of identified studies "outside" the field of deafness. These are ordered according to 2 main conceptual categories and 7 subcategories-(a) the nature of information: "information that is evaluative, not just descriptive"; "the difficulties of information for a purpose"; "the origins and status of information"; and "informed choice and knowledge, not informed choice and information" and (b) parameters and definitions of choice: "informed choice as absolute and relative concept", "preferences and presumptions of rationality", and "informed choice for whom?" Relevant deaf child literature is integrated into the discussion of each conceptual debate in order both to expand and challenge current usage of informed choice as applied to deaf children and families and to delineate possible directions in the planning of the next stage of the main project aimed at producing parent/professional guidelines.