Prevalence of moderate or greater permanent childhood hearing impairment and effectiveness of targeted surveillance for babies who pass newborn hearing screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of targeted surveillance for the identification of moderate to profound PCHI in babies who pass newborn hearing screening in England and have risk factors. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 3,957,891 children born 01/04/2012-31/03/2018 in England. RESULTS: A total of 7148 PCHI cases were identified (1.81 per 1,000 babies). 6,707 followed an immediate referral from the screen (1 per 16 referrals), 51 followed targeted surveillance referral (1 per 540 referrals) and 390 without a referral. Audiology uptake was higher following an immediate referral (96.7% overall, 77.2% within NHSP-defined timescales) than following targeted surveillance (63.8% overall, 51.1% within 52 weeks of birth). The screening was 94.5% sensitive overall, with similar sensitivities for each of the risk factors. General linearised logistic regression models identified syndrome as the risk factor with the highest odds ratio (14.08 for all babies, 22.19 for babies without immediate referral). Close family history of hearing loss was the next highest (10.93 for all babies, 12.29 for babies without immediate referral). CONCLUSION: The evidence for a targeted surveillance programme, based on risk factors, for babies in England who pass the newborn screen is not strong.

Performance and characteristics of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England: The first seven years.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the universal newborn hearing screen in England. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of population screening records. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 4 645 823 children born 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2013. RESULTS: 97.5% of the eligible population complete screening by 4/5 weeks of age and 98.9% complete screening by three months of age. The refer rate for the 12/13 birth cohort is 2.6%. The percentage of screen positive (i.e. referred) babies commencing follow up by four weeks of age and six months of age is 82.5% and 95.8% respectively. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is around 1/1000. For bilateral PCHL in the 12/13 birth cohort the median age is nine days at screen completion, 30 days at entry into follow up, 49 days at confirmation, 50 days at referral to early intervention, and 82 days at hearing-aid fitting. CONCLUSION: The performance of the newborn hearing screening programme has improved continuously. The yield of bilateral PCHL from the screen is about 1/1000 as expected. The age of identification and management is well within the first six months of life, although there remains scope for further improvement with respect to timely entry into follow up.

Effectiveness of targeted surveillance to identify moderate to profound permanent childhood hearing impairment in babies with risk factors who pass newborn screening.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of targeted surveillance for the identification of moderate-profound PCHI in babies who pass the newborn hearing screen in England and have risk factors. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: 2,307,880 children born 01/04/06-30/09/09 in England. RESULTS: Overall the prevalence for all PCHI in children with risk factors who pass newborn hearing screening is 1.49/1000. The risk factors with the highest prevalence are (1) Syndrome (other than Down's) associated with a hearing loss; (2) NICU with refer in both ears at OAE and pass in both ears at AABR; (3) Craniofacial anomaly; (4) Down's syndrome; (5) Congenital infection. CONCLUSION: Targeted surveillance for children who pass the screen and have the risk factors 1-5 listed above will be retained within the English NHSP; targeted surveillance for children who pass the screen and have other risk factors is not effective and has been discontinued.

Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids.

Speech recognition performance and self-reported benefit from linear analogue and advanced (digital) hearing aids were compared in 100 first-time hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid in a single-blind randomized crossover trial. Subjects used each aid for 5 weeks in turn, with aid order balanced across subjects. Three alternative models of digital hearing aid were assigned to subjects according to a balanced design. Aid type was disguised to keep subjects blind within practical limitations. Aided speech recognition performance in noise was measured at speech levels of 65 and 75dB at a speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +2dB for closed sets of single words. Self-rated benefit was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). Quality of life, hearing aid use and user preferences were also assessed. Speech recognition scores with the digital aids were significantly better at 75dB than with the analogue aids Self-reported benefit (APHAB, GHABP) and improvement in quality of life were generally not significantly different between analogue and digital aids, although aversiveness measured with the APHAB was significantly lower with digital aids, and satisfaction measured with the GHABP was greater. The digital aids were preferred significantly more often than the analogue aids, with 61 subjects choosing their digital aid, 26 choosing the analogue aid, and nine being equivocal. Overall, this study shows advantages for advanced digital over simple linear analogue aids in terms of both objective and subjective outcomes, although average differences are not large.