Journal article
Population outcomes of three approaches to detection of congenital hearing loss
M Wake, TYC Ching, K Wirth, Z Poulakis, FK Mensah, L Gold, A King, HE Bryson, S Reilly, F Rickards
Pediatrics | Published : 2016
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Universal newborn hearing screening was implemented worldwide largely on modeled, not measured, long-term benefits. Comparative quantification of population benefits would justify its high cost. Methods: Natural experiment comparing 3 population approaches to detecting bilateral congenital hearing loss (>25 dB, better ear) in Australian states with similar demographics and services: (1) universal newborn hearing screening, New South Wales 2003-2005, n = 69; (2) Risk factor screening (neonatal intensive care screening + universal risk factor referral), Victoria 2003-2005, n = 65; and (3) largely opportunistic detection, Victoria 1991-1993, n = 86. Children in (1) and (2) were foll..
View full abstractGrants
Awarded by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
Funding Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant 491228. Professor Wake was supported by NHMRC Population Health Career Development grant 546405 and Senior Research Fellowship 1046518; Dr Mensah by NHMRC Population Health Capacity Building grant 436914 and Early Career Fellowship 1037449; Dr Lisa Gold by NHMRC Population Health Capacity Building grant 425855 and NHMRC Early Career Fellowship 1035100; and Professor Reilly by NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship 491210. Research at the National Acoustic Laboratories is supported by the Australian Government through the Office of Hearing Services and the HEARing Co-operative Research Centre. Part of the work included in this study was supported by National Institutes of Health funding (R01DC008080) awarded to Dr Ching. Research at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute is supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program. The funding organizations are independent of all researchers and had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the decision to submit the article for publication or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.