TABLE 4.
Population Outcomes of UNHS Versus Risk Factor Versus Opportunistic Screening in Children Without Intellectual Disability
| Outcome | Fully Adjusteda Mean for Each Program | Fully Adjusted Mean Difference (95% CI)a | P (Trend) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opportunisticb | Risk Factorb | UNHSb | Opportunisticb | Risk Factorb | UNHSb | ||
| Milestones to early intervention (mo) | |||||||
| Age diagnosed | 22.5 | 16.2 | 8.1 | Ref | −6.4 (–11.0 to –1.8) | −14.4 (–19.3 to –9.6) | <.001 |
| Age hearing aid fitted | 24.0 | 17.9 | 13.5 | Ref | −6.1 (–11.0 to –1.1) | −10.5 (–15.7 to –5.3) | <.001 |
| Time between diagnosis and fitting | 1.4 | 1.7 | 5.4 | Ref | 0.3 (–1.7 to 2.3) | 4.0 (1.8–6.1) | .001 |
| Language | |||||||
| Receptive language | 81.8 | 83.0 | 88.9 | Ref | 1.1 (–5.4 to 7.7) | 7.0 (0.2–13.8) | .05 |
| Expressive language | 74.9 | 80.7 | 89.3 | Ref | 5.8 (–1.0 to 12.6) | 14.4 (7.3–21.5) | <.001 |
| Receptive vocabulary | 79.4 | 83.8 | 91.5 | Ref | 4.5 (–1.4 to 10.4) | 12.1 (5.9–18.4 | <.001 |
a
Adjusted for parent education, English as a second language, disadvantage index, gender, nonverbal IQ, current hearing loss (and age, for letter knowledge).
b
Sample n varied between 69 and 71 for opportunistic, 51 and 52 for risk factor, and 41 and 42 for UNHS.