Effects of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening on an Early Intervention Program for Children with Hearing Loss, Birth to 3 Yr of Age
Effects of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening on an Early Intervention Program for Children with Hearing Loss, Birth to 3 Yr of Age
复制标题
DOI：
10.3766/jaaa.21.3.5
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Chertoff, Mark E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halpin, Kathy S.;Smith, Kay Y.;Chertoff, Mark E.
背景：普遍新生儿听力筛查（UNHS）于1999年在堪萨斯州推出。在UNHS之前，对一小部分新生儿进行了听力损失筛查并确定为听力损失。目的：本研究的目的是确定UNHS对当地听力损失儿童早期干预（EI）计划的影响。研究设计：这是一项回顾性研究，基于在UNHS建立前后的目标年份参加El计划的儿童的图表回顾。研究样本：145名儿童的图表被审查。数据收集和分析：图表审查针对El计划的以下方面：病例数量、联合国卫生保健系统确定的病例数量百分比、诊断年龄、参加El的年龄、听力损失程度、听力损失的病因、听力损失的晚发性、助听器配戴年龄、6个月前配戴助听器的儿童百分比、重度听力损失儿童配戴人工耳蜗的百分比以及有其他残疾的儿童百分比。结果：在UNHS后，El项目的变化是病例量的增加，UNHS确定的病例量的百分比，6个月前适合使用助听器的儿童的百分比，以及深度听力损失儿童植入人工耳蜗的百分比。诊断年龄、El入学年龄和助听器配戴年龄均有所下降。在UNHS之前，大多数儿童有严重和深度的听力损失；在UNHS后，有更多的儿童出现轻度和中度听力损失。在UNHS前后，已知病因和迟发性听力损失的百分比大致相同，其他残疾儿童的百分比也大致相同。结论：UNHS对病例量、诊断年龄、El入学年龄和助听器配戴年龄有积极影响。在卫生保健系统实施之前，在新生儿时期确定的病例量所占比例约为25%，在卫生保健系统实施后，这一比例超过80%。在UNHS之后，El病例包括轻度和中度听力损失的儿童与严重和深度听力损失的儿童一样多。在研究的最后一个报告年度（2005-2006学年），所有重度听力损失的儿童都植入了人工耳蜗。
Background: Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) was introduced in Kansas in 1999. Prior to UNHS a small percentage of newborns were screened for and identified with hearing loss.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of UNHS on a local early intervention (EI) program for young children with hearing loss.Research Design: This was a retrospective study based on the chart review of children enrolled in the El program during target years before and after the establishment of UNHS.Study Sample: Charts for 145 children were reviewedData Collection and Analysis: The chart review targeted the following aspects of the El program: caseload size, percentage of caseload identified by UNHS, age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in El, degree of hearing loss, etiology of hearing loss, late onset of hearing loss, age of hearing aid fit, percentage of children fit with hearing aids by 6 mo, percentage of children with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants, and percentage of children with additional disabilities.Results: Changes in the El program that occurred after UNHS were increases in caseload size, percentage of caseload identified by UNHS, percentage of children fit with hearing aids by 6 mo of age, and percentage of children with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. There were decreases in age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in El, and age of hearing aid fit. Before UNHS, the majority of children had severe and profound hearing loss; after UNHS there were more children with mild and moderate hearing loss. The percentage of known etiology and late-onset hearing loss was approximately the same before and after UNHS, as was the percentage of children with additional disabilities.Conclusion: UNHS had a positive impact on caseload size, age of diagnosis, age of enrollment in El, and age of hearing aid fit. The percentage of the caseload identified in the newborn period was about 25% before UNHS and over 80% after its implementation. After UNHS, the El caseload included as many children with mild and moderate hearing loss as with severe and profound loss. By the last reporting year in the study (academic year 2005-2006) all children with profound hearing losses had cochlear implants.