Skip to main content
PMC home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
. 2001 May;84(3):F157–F162. doi: 10.1136/fn.84.3.F157

Community based universal neonatal hearing screening by health visitors using otoacoustic emissions

M Owen, M Webb, K Evans
PMCID: PMC1721250  PMID: 11320040

Abstract

OBJECTIVES—To carry out a pilot study to test the feasibility of health visitors (HVs) performing neonatal otoacoustic emissions (OAE) hearing screening in the community using Echoport ILO288 and to evaluate its acceptability to parents and HVs.
DESIGN—Prospective cohort study.
SETTING—Local health centres and babies' homes in urban and rural settings in West Gloucestershire.
PARTICIPANTS—Twelve HVs, 683 babies, and their parents.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Coverage rate, age at testing, referral rate for formal audiology testing, and parental anxiety scores.
RESULTS—Of the 683 babies registered with the study HVs, 99% (675) were tested, with a median age at first test of 18 days. Parental consent for the study was refused for six of the eight not tested. Taking a unilateral pass as a screening pass (for comparison with other studies), 4% (27/675) failed the first OAE test, and 1.9% (13/675) failed a second OAE test performed by the HV within a further two weeks and were referred for formal audiology testing. One baby (0.15%) was found to have a moderate sensorineural hearing loss on brain stem auditory evoked responses, giving a false positive rate of 1.7% (12/675). Some 18% (120/675) were tested at home, of which 80% (96/120) were combined with another planned reason for HV contact. In all, 82% (555/675) of tests were carried out in health centre clinics, of which 47% (260/555) were combined purpose visits. Mean parental anxiety scores (possible range 0-5) were 0.86, 2.27, and 3.45 before the first test, first retest, and audiology test respectively. The median time taken for one HV to complete testing was 12.2 minutes (range 3-65), compared with the 15 minutes currently allocated for two HVs to perform distraction testing. Based on the results of questionnaires, the test was very well received by parents and HVs alike.
CONCLUSION—HVs are able to perform OAE testing in the neonatal period at home and in local health centre clinics. They achieve high population coverage rates and low false positive rates. Universal neonatal hearing screening by HVs using OAE testing is feasible, well received, and could be less demanding of HV time than the current distraction testing. This model of universal neonatal hearing screening should be considered by the National Screening Committee.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bantock H. M., Croxson S. Universal hearing screening using transient otoacoustic emissions in a community health clinic. Arch Dis Child. 1998 Mar;78(3):249–252. doi: 10.1136/adc.78.3.249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment. Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Trial Group. Lancet. 1998 Dec 19;352(9145):1957–1964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. El-Refaie A., Parker D. J., Bamford J. M. Otoacoustic emission versus ABR screening: the effect of external and middle ear abnormalities in a group of SCBU neonates. Br J Audiol. 1996 Feb;30(1):3–8. doi: 10.3109/03005369609077924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hall S., Bobrow M., Marteau T. M. Psychological consequences for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: retrospective interview study. BMJ. 2000 Feb 12;320(7232):407–412. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Reuter G., Bördgen F., Dressler F., Schäfer S., Hemmanouil I., Schönweiler R., Lenarz T. Neugeborenenhörscreening mit dem automatisierten Messgerät Echosensor für otoakustische Emissionen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung. HNO. 1998 Nov;46(11):932–941. doi: 10.1007/s001060050338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Thornton A. R., Kimm L., Kennedy C. R., Cafarelli-Dees D. External- and middle-ear factors affecting evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonates. Br J Audiol. 1993 Oct;27(5):319–327. doi: 10.3109/03005369309076710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Watkin P. M., Baldwin M., Dixon R., Beckman A. Maternal anxiety and attitudes to universal neonatal hearing screening. Br J Audiol. 1998 Feb;32(1):27–37. doi: 10.3109/03005364000000048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Watkin P. M. Neonatal otoacoustic emission screening and the identification of deafness. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996 Jan;74(1):F16–F25. doi: 10.1136/fn.74.1.f16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. White K. R., Maxon A. B. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: simple, beneficial, and presently justified. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995 Jul;32(3):201–211. doi: 10.1016/0165-5876(95)01165-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Yoshinaga-Itano C., Sedey A. L., Coulter D. K., Mehl A. L. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998 Nov;102(5):1161–1171. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.5.1161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES