Related Experiment Videos
Screening infants for hearing loss
J Brown1, E Watson, E Alberman
1Department of Economics, Queen Mary College.
Insights
The eight-month hearing distraction test showed low coverage and a high referral rate, failing to detect sensorineural hearing loss in infants. Computerized registers are valuable for evaluating screening test effectiveness.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric audiology
- Public health screening programs
- Health informatics
Background:
- Early identification of hearing loss is crucial for child development.
- Hearing screening tests aim to detect potential hearing impairments in infants.
- The eight-month hearing distraction test is a common screening method.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the coverage, referral rate, and false positive rate of the eight-month hearing distraction test.
- To assess the effectiveness of the hearing distraction test in identifying sensorineural and conductive hearing loss.
- To highlight the utility of computerized child health registers in evaluating screening programs.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a computerized child health register for a cohort of 1990 births.
- Studied coverage by 9 months, referral rates, and true problem rates among referred infants.
- Analyzed screening outcomes in relation to sensorineural and conductive hearing loss.
Main Results:
- Coverage by 9 months was below 60%, varying by ethnicity and immunization status.
- The true problem rate among referred infants was 48%.
- The screening test failed to detect sensorineural hearing loss but identified conductive loss.
Conclusions:
- The current use of the hearing distraction test is questionable due to low coverage and high false referral rates.
- Computerized registers, even for basic child registration, are essential for robust evaluation of screening tests.
- Improved screening strategies are needed to effectively identify all types of hearing loss in infants.
Abstract:
A computerised child health register was used to study the coverage, referral rate, and false positive rate of the eight month hearing distraction test in a cohort of 1990 births to residents of one district during an eight month period. Coverage by the age of 9 months was under 60% and varied with ethnic group and immunisation record. The true problem rate among those referred was 48%. None of the three children in the cohort who had a sensorineural hearing loss was picked up by screening, although it did identify children with conductive loss. The findings question the value of the distraction test as currently used, and underline the usefulness of computerisation, even if limited to child registration, in the evaluation of screening tests.