Impact of the Improved Publicly-funded Newborn Hearing Screening Program.

IF 1.8 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
JMA journal Pub Date : 2025-04-28 Epub Date: 2025-03-28 DOI:10.31662/jmaj.2024-0344
Nao Doi, Ichiro Fukunaga, Taisuke Kobayashi, Kahori Hirose, Masamitsu Hyodo, Masanori Teshima
{"title":"Impact of the Improved Publicly-funded Newborn Hearing Screening Program.","authors":"Nao Doi, Ichiro Fukunaga, Taisuke Kobayashi, Kahori Hirose, Masamitsu Hyodo, Masanori Teshima","doi":"10.31662/jmaj.2024-0344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To increase the coverage rate and effectiveness, universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) should be financed by public funding rather than individuals. This study investigated the impact of the publicly-funded NHS program on the detection rate and the time to diagnosis and initiation of intervention for children with congenital hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared two groups: one group included newborns born between April 2011 and March 2016 who either did not pass NHS or were referred due to high risk (Group 1); the other group included newborns born between April 2017 and March 2022 who met the same criteria (Group 2). The screening costs of Group 1 were covered by the guardians' payments, whereas those of Group 2 were covered by public funding. The NHS program in Group 2 exhibited improved screening methods, course, and timing of diagnostic hearing tests for referred newborns. The number of detected newborns with hearing impairment, the period between birth and the initial visit to a diagnostic institution, and the time to intervention were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 2 had more newborns with hearing loss (n = 51) than Group 1 (n = 32), representing a significant difference (p = 0.005). Group 2 had more children with bilateral hearing loss (n = 29) than Group 1 (n = 21), but the difference was not significant. The duration until the diagnostic test was significantly reduced in Group 2 (58 days in Group 1 vs. 35 days in Group 2). The duration of intervention also was significantly reduced in Group 2 (147 days vs. 99 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The improved program based on public funding achieved an increased number of detected infants with hearing loss. Additionally, it shortened the durations until the first diagnostic test to an institution and intervention. The new NHS program funded by local governments achieved improved effectiveness by unifying the screening method, the course of diagnostic hearing examination, and the follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":73550,"journal":{"name":"JMA journal","volume":"8 2","pages":"533-539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12095136/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMA journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2024-0344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To increase the coverage rate and effectiveness, universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) should be financed by public funding rather than individuals. This study investigated the impact of the publicly-funded NHS program on the detection rate and the time to diagnosis and initiation of intervention for children with congenital hearing loss.

Methods: We compared two groups: one group included newborns born between April 2011 and March 2016 who either did not pass NHS or were referred due to high risk (Group 1); the other group included newborns born between April 2017 and March 2022 who met the same criteria (Group 2). The screening costs of Group 1 were covered by the guardians' payments, whereas those of Group 2 were covered by public funding. The NHS program in Group 2 exhibited improved screening methods, course, and timing of diagnostic hearing tests for referred newborns. The number of detected newborns with hearing impairment, the period between birth and the initial visit to a diagnostic institution, and the time to intervention were evaluated.

Results: Group 2 had more newborns with hearing loss (n = 51) than Group 1 (n = 32), representing a significant difference (p = 0.005). Group 2 had more children with bilateral hearing loss (n = 29) than Group 1 (n = 21), but the difference was not significant. The duration until the diagnostic test was significantly reduced in Group 2 (58 days in Group 1 vs. 35 days in Group 2). The duration of intervention also was significantly reduced in Group 2 (147 days vs. 99 days).

Conclusions: The improved program based on public funding achieved an increased number of detected infants with hearing loss. Additionally, it shortened the durations until the first diagnostic test to an institution and intervention. The new NHS program funded by local governments achieved improved effectiveness by unifying the screening method, the course of diagnostic hearing examination, and the follow-up.

改善公共资助的新生儿听力筛查项目的影响。
为了提高覆盖率和有效性,新生儿听力筛查(NHS)应由公共资金而不是个人资助。本研究调查了公共资助的NHS计划对先天性听力损失儿童的检出率、诊断时间和开始干预的影响。方法:我们比较两组:一组包括2011年4月至2016年3月出生的未通过NHS或因高危而转诊的新生儿(组1);另一组包括2017年4月至2022年3月出生的符合相同标准的新生儿(第二组)。第一组的筛查费用由监护人支付,而第二组的筛查费用由公共资金支付。第2组的NHS项目展示了对转诊新生儿的筛查方法、过程和诊断性听力测试时间的改进。对发现的听力障碍新生儿的数量、出生到首次到诊断机构就诊的时间以及进行干预的时间进行了评估。结果:2组新生儿听力损失(n = 51)多于1组(n = 32),差异有统计学意义(p = 0.005)。2组患儿双侧听力损失(n = 29)多于1组(n = 21),但差异无统计学意义。第2组的诊断测试时间明显缩短(第1组58天,第2组35天)。第二组的干预时间也显著缩短(147天对99天)。结论:基于公共资金的改进方案提高了发现的听力损失婴儿的数量。此外,它缩短了从第一次诊断测试到机构和干预的持续时间。由地方政府资助的新NHS项目通过统一筛查方法、听力诊断检查过程和随访,提高了效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信