Study on multi-area universal newborn hearing screening in countryside of China.
- Author:
Lihui HUANG
1
;
Zhenghua CAI
;
Hua ZHANG
;
Shichun PENG
;
Dongsheng WU
;
Lei WANG
;
Weiping FAN
;
Rulan YANG
;
Yan HUANG
;
Xia LUO
;
Lin TU
;
Hui EN
;
Beier QI
;
Yong ZHEN
;
Demin HAN
Author Information
1. Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
China;
epidemiology;
Feasibility Studies;
Hearing Loss;
diagnosis;
epidemiology;
Hearing Tests;
Humans;
Infant, Newborn;
Neonatal Screening;
Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous;
Prevalence;
Rural Population
- From:
Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery
2009;23(16):737-742
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the feasibility of universal newborn hearing screening in countryside in order to provide reliable evidence in launching this program all over the countryside of China.
METHOD:Subjects were 12,638 infants who were born in 9 counties from Jan 2004 to Dec 2005. TEOAE was used for the fast hearing screening. Infants were screened on the 2-7 days after the birth. The re-screening was conducted in 4-6 weeks if failed in the initial screening, and follow-up were provided continually if they also failed in the re-screening.
RESULT:Ten thousand eight hundred and forty-five of 12,638 (85.8%) were screened including 9,963 (91.9%) normal newborns and 882 (8.1%) newborns with high-risk. Seven thousand four hundred and fifty (68.7%) newborns passed the initial screening, and 3,395 (31.3%) people failed. One thousand seven hundred and ninety-three (14.2%) infants were refused to be screened. Only 2,536 (74.7%) were re-screened on time, and 859 (25.3%) did not receive re-screening. One hundred and twenty were failed in the re-screening or first screening, and 79 (65.8%) of them received diagnostic assessment. Among the infants received diagnostic assessment, 6 (7.6%) cases were found to have profound hearing loss in both ears, 9 (11.4%) cases were found to be severe hearing loss (7 in both ears and 2 in single ear), 11 (13.9%) cases were found to be moderate hearing loss (5 in both ear and 6 in single ear), 26 (32.9%) were found to have slight hearing loss (11 in both ear and 15 in single ears), and 27 (34.2%) were normal. Fifty-two infants were diagnosed as hearing loss with a prevalence of congenital hearing loss (in binaural and monaural) of 0.5% (52/10845) and a prevalence of bilateral hearing loss of 0.3% (29/10845). A prevalence of congenital hearing loss was 0.2% (22/9,963) in well infants and 3.4% (30/882) in high risk infants. Among the 13 cases of children with severe and profound hearing loss in both ears children, 8 (61.5%) cases were fitted with hearing aids and 1 (7.7%) case was implanted with cochlear implants.
CONCLUSION:It is necessary and feasible to conduct hearing screening program in the rural area. However, the suitable model to perform the program in the countryside needs to be set up as soon as possible in order to get more poor infants to participate into the hearing screening program for free and increase the screening rate.
