Search

Context: Permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) can affect speech, language, and wider outcomes. Adverse effects are mitigated through universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early intervention., Objective: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence of UNHS-detected PCHL (bilateral loss ≥26 dB HL) and its variation by admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). A secondary objective was to report UNHS programme performance (PROSPERO: CRD42016051267)., Data Sources: Multiple electronic databases were interrogated in January 2017, with further reports identified from article citations and unpublished literature (November 2017)., Study Selection: UNHS reports from very highly-developed (VHD) countries with relevant prevalence and performance data; no language or date restrictions., Data Extraction: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality., Results: We identified 41 eligible reports from 32 study populations (1799863 screened infants) in 6195 non-duplicate references. Pooled UNHS-detected PCHL prevalence was 1.1 per 1000 screened children (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9, 1.3; I2 = 89.2%). This was 6.9 times (95% CI: 3.8, 12.5) higher among those admitted to NICU. Smaller studies were significantly associated with higher prevalences (Egger's test: p = 0.02). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89-100% and 92-100% respectively, positive predictive values from 2-84%, with all negative predictive values 100%., Limitations: Results are generalisable to VHD countries only. Estimates and inferences were limited by available data., Conclusions: In VHD countries, 1 per 1000 screened newborns require referral to clinical services for PCHL. Prevalence is higher in those admitted to NICU. Improved reporting would support further examination of screen performance and child demographics., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017 will soon allow people to purchase hearing aids without an audiologist or hearing aid dispenser acting as a go-between. Under this new arrangement there will be no guarantee that purchasers with hearing loss will have access to the hearing care services that are often needed to optimize hearing and communication with the devices. Using data for 2013 from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we examined existing barriers to accessing those services among older Medicare beneficiaries who owned and used hearing aids. Within this population, beneficiaries who were dually eligible for Medicaid had 41 percent lower odds of using hearing care services and were twice as likely to report having a lot of trouble hearing with their aids, compared to high-income Medicare beneficiaries. Existing barriers to device owners' receiving hearing care services are likely to be exacerbated when over-the-counter sales further separate the purchase of hearing aids from payment for supportive services. Coverage of hearing care services under the Medicare program should be considered to address income-related constraints to service access.

Issue: The Medicare program specifically excludes coverage of dental, vision, and hearing services. As a result, many beneficiaries do not receive necessary care. Those that do are subject to high out-of-pocket costs., Goal: Examine gaps in access to dental, vision, and hearing services for Medicare beneficiaries and design a voluntary dental, vision, and hearing benefit plan with cost estimates., Methods: Uses the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Cost and Use File, 2012, with population and costs projected to 2016 values., Findings and Conclusions: Among Medicare beneficiaries, 75 percent of people who needed a hearing aid did not have one; 70 percent of people who had trouble eating because of their teeth did not go to the dentist in the past year; and 43 percent of people who had trouble seeing did not have an eye exam in the past year. Lack of access was particularly acute for poor beneficiaries. Because few people have supplemental insurance covering these additional services, among people who received care, three-fourths of their costs of dental and hearing services and 60 percent of their costs of vision services were paid out of pocket. We propose a basic benefit package for dental, vision, and hearing services offered as a premium-financed voluntary insurance option under Medicare. Assuming the benefit package could be offered for $25 per month, we estimate the total coverage costs would be $1.924 billion per year, paid for by premiums. Subsidies to reach low-income beneficiaries would follow the same design as the Part D subsidy.

Objective: Little is known about the long-term efficacious and economic impacts of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS)., Design: An analytical Markov decision model was framed with two screening strategies: UNHS with transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) test and automatic acoustic brainstem response (aABR) test against no screening. By estimating intervention and long-term costs on treatment and productivity losses and the utility of life years determined by the status of hearing loss, we computed base-case estimates of the incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). The scattered plot of ICUR and acceptability curve was used to assess the economic results of aABR versus TEOAE or both versus no screening., Study Sample: A hypothetical cohort of 200,000 Taiwanese newborns., Results: TEOAE and aABR dominated over no screening strategy (ICUR = $-4800.89 and $-4111.23, indicating less cost and more utility). Given $20,000 of willingness to pay (WTP), the probability of being cost-effective of aABR against TEOAE was up to 90%., Conclusions: UNHS for hearing loss with aABR is the most economic option and supported by economically evidence-based evaluation from societal perspective.

Objective: By comparing the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) program as implemented in Shanghai and other regions in China and countries around the world, this study makes an assessment of the Shanghai model and summarizes the experiences implementing the UNHS program, so as to provide a valuable reference for other countries or regions to carry out UNHS more effectively. Since Shanghai is one of the most developed regions in China, we also examined the relationship between economic development and the UNHS starting year and coverage rate., Methods: The study conducted a systematic review of published studies in Chinese and English on the program status of neonatal hearing screening to compare and analyze the implementation of the UNHS program in 20 cities or provinces in China and 24 regions or countries around the world. The literature search in Chinese was conducted in the three most authoritative publication databases, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), WANFANGDATA, and CQVIP (http://www.cqvip.com/). We searched all publications in those databases with the keywords "neonatal hearing screening" (in Chinese) between 2005 and 2014. English literature was searched using the same keywords (in English). The publication database included Medline and Web of Science, and the search time period was 2000-2014., Results: Shanghai was one of the first regions in China to implement UNHS, and its coverage rate was among the top regions by international comparison. The starting time of the UNHS program had no relationship with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in the same year. Economic level serves as a threshold for carrying out UNHS but is not a linear contributor to the exact starting time of such a program. The screening coverage rate generally showed a rising trend with the increasing GDP per capita in China, but it had no relationship with the area's GDP per capita in selected regions and countries around the world. The system design of UNHS is the key factor influencing screening coverage. Policy makers, program administrators, and cost-sharing structures are important factors that influence the coverage rates of UNHS., Conclusion: When to carry out a UNHS program is determined by the willingness and preference of the local government, which is influenced by the area's social, political and cultural conditions. Mandatory hearing screening and minimal-cost to no-cost intervention are two pillars for a good coverage rate of UNHS. In terms of system design, decision-making, implementation, funding and the concrete implementation plan are all important factors affecting the implementation of the UNHS., (Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over twenty million persons with disability in India are increasingly being offered poverty alleviation strategies, including employment programs. This study employs a spatial analytic approach to identify correlates of employment among persons with disability in India, considering sight, speech, hearing, movement, and mental disabilities., Methods: Based on 2001 Census data, this study utilizes linear regression and spatial autoregressive models to identify factors associated with the proportion employed among persons with disability at the district level. Models stratified by rural and urban areas were also considered., Results: Spatial autoregressive models revealed that different factors contribute to employment of persons with disability in rural and urban areas. In rural areas, having mental disability decreased the likelihood of employment, while being female and having movement, or sight impairment (compared to other disabilities) increased the likelihood of employment. In urban areas, being female and illiterate decreased the likelihood of employment but having sight, mental and movement impairment (compared to other disabilities) increased the likelihood of employment., Conclusions: Poverty alleviation programs designed for persons with disability in India should account for differences in employment by disability types and should be spatially targeted. Since persons with disability in rural and urban areas have different factors contributing to their employment, it is vital that government and service-planning organizations account for these differences when creating programs aimed at livelihood development.

Introduction: Chronic diseases are associated with productivity loss costs due to sickness absence. It is not always clear, however, which chronic diseases in particular are involved with how many sickness days and associated costs., Objective: To determine the prevalence, additional days of sickness absence, and associated costs of chronic diseases among the Dutch working population from 2007 to 2011., Methods: Prevalence of chronic diseases and additional days of sickness absence were derived from the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey (NWCS) from 2007 to 2011. The cost of each sickness absence day was based on linked personal income data. We used multiple regression analysis to derive the unconfounded additional days of sickness absence due to each chronic disease., Results: Annually, approximately 37 % of the Dutch working population reported some type of chronic physical or psychological disease. No clinically relevant changes in prevalence of specific chronic diseases were observed in the studied period, nor in the number of additional sickness absence days or associated costs. The national financial burden due to sickness absence associated with chronic musculoskeletal disorders amounted to €1.3 billion annually., Conclusions: Chronic diseases result in substantial productivity loss due to sickness absence. Given the ageing population, the proposed increase in the state pension age and an increase in sedentary lifestyle and obesity, the prevalence of chronic diseases may be expected to rise. Coordinated efforts to maintain and improve the health of the working population are necessary to minimize socioeconomic consequences.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening 50- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss in The Netherlands. We compared no screening, telephone screening, Internet screening, screening with a handheld screening device, and audiometric screening for various starting ages and a varying number of repeated screenings., Methods: The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for no screening and for 76 screening strategies were analyzed using a Markov model with cohort simulation for the year 2011. Screening was deemed to be cost-effective if the costs were less than €20,000/QALY., Results: Screening with a handheld screening device and audiometric screening were generally more costly but less effective than telephone and Internet screening. Internet screening strategies were slightly better than telephone screening strategies. Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, was the most cost-effective strategy, costing €3699/QALY. At a threshold of €20,000/QALY, this strategy was with 100% certainty cost-effective compared with current practice and with 69% certainty the most cost-effective strategy among all strategies., Conclusions: This study suggests that Internet screening at age 50 years, repeated at ages 55, 60, 65, and 70 years, is the optimal strategy to screen for hearing loss and might be considered for nationwide implementation., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives/hypothesis: To establish an ideal operative procedure of universal newborn hearing screening and to investigate whether a government-funded program increases compliance with such screening., Study Design: Individual cohort study., Methods: Of the 3,373 neonates born at the Taipei City Hospital during the period August 2009 to July 2010, there were 3,361 who received hearing screening with automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) 24 to 36 hours after birth. The cost of each procedure (US $16.70) was covered by the Taipei City Health Bureau. The control group comprised 6,582 neonates born at the same hospital during the period January 2003 to December 2004, of whom 5,749 had been screened with transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE). The cost of each procedure (US $26.70) was paid by the parents of each newborn., Results: The incidence of bilateral moderate to severe hearing impairment was 0.06% (two out of 3,361) and 0.10% (six out of 5,749) in the study and the control group, respectively. The incidence of unilateral hearing impairment was 0.09% (three out of 3,361) and 0.19% (11 out of 5,749) respectively. The coverage rate of the study was significantly higher than that of the control group (99.64% vs. 87.34%, P < .001). A significant decrease of the referral rate was achieved in the study group when compared with the control group (0.95% vs. 2.82%, P < .001). The follow-up rate of the study group was significantly higher than that of the control group (100.00% vs. 40.74%, P < .001)., Conclusions: The government-funded AABR program resulted in markedly better parental compliance with newborn hearing screening than the self-pay TEOAE screening program., Level of Evidence: 2b., (Copyright © 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to perform a critical and systematic literature review of studies on societal costs due to hearing disorders., Design: We used predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and other relevant websites. The review included studies written in English or Swedish between 1995 and the end of January 2012., Study Sample: We identified four published studies and four reports that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria., Results: Swedish cost studies primarily focused on costs of hearing aids. International studies with a societal perspective used different costing approaches and were limited to specific patient populations. Hearing disorders impact the social welfare system more than the medical care system. Indirect costs account for the major part and direct medical costs for a minor part of the total costs of hearing disorders., Conclusions: There is a need for further studies estimating societal costs for all degrees of hearing disorders, in particular since a large part of the people with hearing disorders are of working age.

Background: The burden of disease of hearing disorders among adults is high, but a significant part goes undetected. Screening programs in combination with the delivery of hearing aids can alleviate this situation, but the economic attractiveness of such programs is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the population-level costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of alternative delivering hearing aids models in Tamil Nadu, India, Methods: In an observational study design, we estimated total costs and effects of two active screening programs in the community in combination with the provision of hearing aids at secondary care level, and the costs and effects of the provision of hearing aids at tertiary care level. Screening and hearing aid delivery costs were estimated on the basis of program records and an empirical assessment of health personnel time input. Household costs for seeking and undergoing hearing health care were collected with a questionnaire (see Additional file 2). Health effects were estimated on the basis of compliance with the hearing aid, and associated changes in disability, and were expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted., Results: Active screening and provision of hearing aids at the secondary care level costs around Rs.7,000 (US$152) per patient, whereas provision of hearing aids at the tertiary care level costs Rs 5,693 (US$122) per patient. The cost per DALY averted was around RS 42,200 (US$900) at secondary care level and Rs 33,900 (US$720) at tertiary care level. The majority of people did consult other providers before being screened in the community. Costs of food and transport ranged between Rs. 2 (US$0,04) and Rs. 39 (US$0,83)., Conclusion: Active screening and provision of hearing aids at the secondary care level is slightly more costly than passive screening and fitting of hearing aids at the tertiary care level, but seems also able to reach a higher coverage of hearing aids services. Although crude estimates indicate that both passive and active screening programs can be cautiously considered as cost-effective according to international thresholds, important questions remain regarding the implementation of the latter.

Background: The burden of disease of hearing disorders among children is high, but a large part goes undetected. School-based screening programs in combination with the delivery of hearing aids can alleviate this situation, but the costs of such programs are unknown., Aim: To evaluate the costs of a school-based screening program for hearing disorders, among approximately 216,000 school children, and the delivery of hearing aids to 206 children at three different care levels in China., Methods: In a prospective study design, screening and hearing aid delivery costs were estimated on the basis of program records and an empirical assessment of health personnel time input. Household costs for seeking and undergoing hearing health care were collected with a questionnaire, administered to the parents of the child. Data were collected at three study sites representing primary, secondary and tertiary care levels., Results: Total screening and hearing aid delivery costs ranged between RMB70,000 (US$9,000) and RMB133,000 (US$17,000) in the three study sites. Health care cost per child fitted ranged from RMB5,900 (US$760) at the primary care level, RMB7,200 (US$940) at the secondary care level, to RMB8,600 (US$1,120) at the tertiary care level. Household costs were only a small fraction of the overall costs. Cost per child fitted ranged between RMB1,608 and RMB2,812 (US$209-US$365), depending on perspective of analysis and study site. The program was always least costly in the primary care setting., Conclusion: Hearing screening and the delivery of hearing aids in China is least costly in a primary care setting. Important questions remain concerning its implementation.

Background: The implementation of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) in Germany in 2009 requires a realistic cost calculation for health insurance companies and participating clinics, Material and Methods: Screening costs from 60 Hessian clinics were analyzed over 2.5 years whereby 94,203 children had been screened either with a 2-step (TEOAE, AABR) or a 1-step procedure (AABR)., Results: The TEOAE-AABR screening at EUR 13.16 per child was more cost-efficient. For a population with a high rate of at-risk babies a sole AABR device with screening costs of EUR 16.87 presents a more efficient alternative. High quality of screening performance and qualification of screening staff markedly reduced total cost. Overhead costs for tracking, quality assurance, control of completeness, and securing structural screening requirements, considered as essential screening costs, were calculated at EUR 4.00 per child. The total costs in Hesse would therefore be EUR 17.16 per child for TEOAE-AABR screening and EUR 20.87 per child for an AABR screening., Conclusion: In a mixed calculation which can be cautiously extrapolated from the Hessian data for Germany as a whole, costs would be EUR 18.40 per registered child.

Objectives: Our main objective was to compare willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) in a discrete choice experiment on hearing aid provision. Additionally, income effect and endowment effect were explored as possible explanations for the disparity between WTA and WTP, and the impact of using a WTA and/or WTP format to elicit monetary valuations on the net benefit of the new organization of hearing aid provision was examined., Methods: Choice sets were based on five attributes: performer of the initial assessment; accuracy of the initial assessment; duration of the pathway; follow-up at the ear, nose, and throat specialist; and costs. Persons with hearing complaints randomly received a WTP (costs defined as extra payment) or WTA (costs defined as discount) version of the experiment. In the versions, except for the cost attribute, all choice sets were equal., Results: The cost coefficient was statistically significantly higher in the WTP format. Marginal WTA was statistically significantly higher than marginal WTP for the attributes accuracy and follow-up. Disparity was higher in the high educational (as proxy for income) group. We did not find proof of an experience endowment effect. Implementing the new intervention would only be recommended when using WTP., Conclusions: WTA exceeds WTP, also in a discrete choice experiment. As this affects monetary valuations, more research on when to use a payment or a discount in the cost attribute is needed before discrete choice results can be used in cost-benefit analyses.

Objective: Hearing aids are the principal tool for rehabilitation of hearing loss, one of the most prevalent impairments among elderly adults, but cost-utility ratings for hearing aid use are limited., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting and Patients: A multistate Markov model was constructed to model 50- to 80-year-old patients moving between states, including normal hearing, mild, moderate, or severe hearing loss. Parameters assigned in the model are partly derived from the Medline source (1966-2005) and partly from data on hearing-impaired elders (n = 96) in a tertiary care center in Taiwan. To address uncertainty, most of the parameters were specified by distributions, rather than base-case values. A probabilistic approach with Monte Carlo simulations was performed to produce an acceptability curve, showing the probabilities of being cost-effective given threshold values of willingness to pay (WTP)., Main Outcome Measures: Hearing-related quality-adjusted life-years and cost in US dollars and Euros., Results: The incremental costs for gaining an additional hearing-related quality-adjusted life-years in women and men were US $13,615 (Euro 10,826) and 9,702 (Euro 7,715), respectively. The probability of being cost-effective increased to 53% in women and 65% in men given a WTP of US $12,000 (Euro 9,542). The probabilities of being cost-effective to reach plateau were 67% for women and 78% for men given a WTP of US $20,000 (Euro 15,904)., Conclusion: By modeling different degrees of hearing loss with a multistate model, hearing aid use was demonstrated to be a cost-effective strategy to rehabilitate the hearing-impaired elderly. These results can assist policy makers in allocating health resources appropriately and effectively.

Objectives: Universal infant hearing screening using otoacoustic emission and auditory brain-stem response audiometry is widely administered to attain the goals of early identification of, and intervention for hearing impairment. Concerns regarding screening specificity have, however, been raised. False positives may result from vernix occlusion in the ear canal or transient middle ear effusion, and can result in substantial costs to health care systems. The current study investigates the effects of age and time interval between tests on hearing assessment results., Setting & Participants: Three hundred and seventeen positive screens from a 2-stage distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) screening programme in Hong Kong, who subsequently received diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) assessment and monitoring, were investigated., Main Outcome Measures: Differences in diagnostic ABR results were compared among infants of different ages at tests, and with different time lapses after DPOAE screening. The proportion of those having persistent hearing impairment, conductive loss and impairment of moderate degree or above, were also compared., Results: A significantly higher rate of normal ABR thresholds (60%versus 24%) was noted in infants assessed after age 50 days, and in infants diagnostically assessed with a time lapse of over 20 days post-DPOAE screening (65%versus 42%)., Conclusions: Delaying diagnostic ABR assessment may reveal a higher percentage of normal thresholds, and hence probably higher specificity. Time delay may allow for spontaneous resolution of transient outer and middle ear conditions. However, the goals of early identification and intervention, as well as possible parental anxiety with delayed assessment, should also be considered when reviewing infant hearing screening schedules.

Objective: This study evaluated an alternative transient evoked otoacoustic emissions method for screening hearing in newborn babies that may reduce the referral rate of initial screening., Methods: A total of 1,033 neonates (2,066 ears) from two hospitals were recruited. Subjects had their hearing screened in both ears using a combined approach-both click evoked OAEs (CEOAEs) and 1kHz tone burst evoked OAEs (TBOAEs)., Results: 1kHz TBOAEs were more robust than CEOAEs in terms of emission response level and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at both 1 and 1.5kHz frequency bands. The prevalence rate for CEOAE and TBOAE responses in these two frequency bands was significantly different. The combined protocol significantly reduced the referral rate-by almost 2 percentage points for first time screening., Conclusions: The implementation of a combined 1kHz TBOAE/CEOAE screening protocol is a feasible and effective way to reduce referral rates, and hence false positive rates, in neonatal hearing screening programs.

Unlabelled: This presentation of the public health impact of hearing impairment highlights the important elements of interaction between the disability and community., Objectives: Retrospective study to identify the size of the problem of hearing loss, illustrating not only the magnitude but also the serious effect of the lack of reliable data concerning this matter. It highlights the challenges met within a mid-economy community regarding the handling of the impact of the disability. The Egyptian data is given as an example of the situation in a mid-economy community., Study Design: A brief introduction of some epidemiological factors of hearing impairment is presented including the size of the problem in Egypt. Data of the neonatal hearing screening program of the Audiology Unit, Ain Shams University, is presented. The impact of the disability is then discussed in relation to the age of onset and the degree and type of hearing loss. This is followed by the description of the nature and effect of the disability in the different age groups. A discussion of the various factors that may modify the capability of the community to deal with such disability follows. This includes various economic indices with their possible limitations on the part of the community. Such a briefing illustrates the challenges met in the rehabilitation of the deaf and the hearing-impaired in a developing mid-economy country. The broad lines of the management of the problem both at the prophylactic as well as the rehabilitative levels are discussed. A final remark on recommendations and possible future development in a developing country is presented., (Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Hearing loss affects 1-3 out of 1000 newborns. A programme of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) was implemented in our ENT department in February 2000. In 2001, the programme was extended to all the hospitals of the canton Geneva. The programme is based on the recording of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) from all newborns. In addition, automated auditory brainstem responses (aABR) are recorded in high-risk neonates. In the report, we compare the mean age at which rehabilitation of hearing was undertaken during a 5-year period before and after the screening programme was instituted. We also identify some causes of delayed diagnosis and intervention and the pitfalls of universal hearing screening. The price of the UNHS programme is estimated at 26 Swiss francs (17 Euros; 21 US dollars) per infant screened, including the material required, the personal involved to run the programme, and the follow-up.

Objectives: To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting, Methods: Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined., Results: All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from 647,209 euros/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to 15,811 euros/QALY for HUI3., Conclusion: Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyses.

Objective: To compare the initial referral rate, the accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss, and the cost between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and one step with AABR in newborn hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to compare their efficacy between our three different protocols and to see which one is most cost-effective., Study Design: From November 1998 to April 2006, 25,588 healthy newborns were screened for hearing loss in Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei. In the periods from November 1998 to January 2004, from February 2004 to February 2005, and from March 2005 to April 2006, the screening tools used were TEOAE alone (n = 18,260), TEOAE plus AABR (n = 3,540), and AABR (n = 3,788), respectively., Results: A statistically significant decrease in referral rate was achieved in the group using AABR as screening tools when compared with TEOAE plus AABR and TEOAE alone (0.8 versus 1.6 versus 5.8%). The accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss was 0.42% in AABR protocol, 0.25% in TEOAE and AABR protocol, and 0.45% in TEOAE protocol, which was not statistically significant. The total direct costs (including predischarge screening and postdischarge follow-up costs) per screening were US $10.04 for the program using TEOAE alone, US $8.60 for TEOAE plus AABR, and US $7.33 for AABR. The intangible cost (parental anxiety) was much higher in the earlier program due to higher referral rate., Conclusion: In the efficacy of the hearing screening program using the one-step TEOAE, two-step TEOAE and AABR, and one-step AABR programs, the latter significantly decreased the referral rate from 5.8, to 1.6, and to 0.8%. No significant difference was noted between their accurate identification rates of congenital hearing loss. The total costs, including expenditures and intangible cost, were much lower in the protocol with AABR due to reduction in false positives.

Background: Wax in ear canal causes a sizeable burden on resources of health services to a country., Aim: The magnitude of impacted wax, its effect in a survey and cost of managing this problem were reviewed in 2002., Settings and Designs: A study was conducted during 1996 to estimate the magnitude and causes of hearing impairment and ear diseases in Oman. The authors further reviewed the data of community-based prevalence study to assess the role of impacted wax., Materials and Methods: Trained physicians used portable audiometers to test the hearing status of each ear. They used otoscopes to examine the ear. Persons suspected to have hearing impairment or ear disease were reexamined by audiologists and otologists to determine the causes of hearing impairment. The resources for managing impacted wax were also calculated., Results: In this survey, 11,402 subjects of all ages were examined. Prevalence of impacted wax was 11.7% (CI 95% 11.1-12.2). Impacted wax was significantly higher in females compared to males [RR = 1.22 (CI 95% 1.10-1.35)]. It was more common in residents of regions with humid environment than those of regions with less humidity [RR = 1.91 (CI 95% 1.67-2.18)]. Impacted wax in ear canal was associated with ear diseases. A total of 181,000 Omani people were estimated to have impacted wax in the ear canal. Managing impacted wax could cost 3.6 million US dollars to the ear care services., Conclusions: Impacted wax was a hindrance in the hearing survey and countries should plan to deal with earwax in such surveys. Its impact on hearing impairment and resource burden should be considered while formulating policies for ear care.

Objective: To present an alternative surgical dressing for bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) abutment sites, comparing it with the manufacturer's recommended "healing cap" in terms of split thickness skin graft (STSG) survival., Study Design and Setting: A retrospective review of 30 patients who underwent unilateral BAHA implantation at a tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into two groups on the basis of the surgical dressing for the BAHA abutment site. Group 1 had a "healing cap" dressing, and group 2 had a bolster dressing. STSG survival was evaluated., Results: Between May 2002 and July 2006, 30 patients underwent BAHA implantation. Seven patients received the "healing cap" dressing, and 23 patients received the bolster dressing. There was 100% STSG survival in the bolster dressing group and 71% skin graft survival in the healing cap group (P = .048)., Conclusion: A traditional bolster dressing had improved STSG survival as compared with the manufacturer's recommended "healing cap." Additional benefits of a bolster are that it is maintenance free, well suited for noncompliant patients, and inexpensive.

The Child Hearing Early Assessment Programme (CHEAP) regional project, was a combined departmental approach (Audiology, Neonatology) of the University Hospital of Ferrara, aimed at identifying neonatal hearing impairment and defining early intervention strategies. Aims of this project have been: (i) construction of a neonatal screening programme using evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brainstem responses; (ii) the calculation of a precise estimate of cost-benefits for every child tested; (iii) the development of an information flow instrument (database) for the storage of data and the statistical analysis of the results. The present report refers only to the results of the project related to the otoacoustic emission data from well-babies and intensive care unit residents. In the period January 2000-December 2004, 4269 full-term newborns and 654 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit babies were tested at the Neonatology Department. The cost of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening was estimated at Euro 9.20 per child, considering the use of the ILO-292 apparatus, and Euro 8.28 per child in the case of an automatic screener. In this screening model, the initial hardware costs can be re-iterated into budget in a period of two years, if 1000 children per year are tested.

As part of the national plan for elimination of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), Oman established a national registry of CRS cases. As of May 2005, the registry included 43 surviving CRS cases, with a mean age of 11.9 years. Clinical examinations found that 84% had ocular defects, 84% had auditory/speech defects, 70% had neurological manifestations, and 42% had cardiac defects. Lifetime medical, special education, and rehabilitation costs were assessed. Using a discount rate of 3%, the average direct lifetime cost per surviving CRS patient was estimated at 18,644 US dollars. When including predicted lost productivity due to CRS, the average discounted direct and indirect lifetime costs per surviving CRS patient amounted to 98,734 US dollars.

Tinnitus is an increasing health concern across all strata of the general population. Although an abundant amount of literature has addressed the many facets of tinnitus, wide-ranging differences in professional beliefs and attitudes persist concerning its clinical management. These differences are detrimental to tinnitus patients because the management they receive is based primarily on individual opinion (which can be biased) rather than on medical consensus. It is thus vitally important for the tinnitus professional community to work together to achieve consensus. To that end, this article provides a broad-based review of what is presently known about tinnitus, including prevalence, associated factors, theories of pathophysiology, psychological effects, effects on disability and handicap, workers' compensation issues, clinical assessment, and various forms of treatment. This summary of fundamental information has relevance to both clinical and research arenas.

The aims of this study were to investigate hearing aid satisfaction for a group of older Australians fitted with government-funded hearing aids using the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire; to compare the Australian data gathered with the provisional normative data reported by Cox and Alexander (1999); and to investigate the relationship between SADL satisfaction and several participant variables, hearing aid variables, and other outcome measures. The SADL questionnaire and a Client Satisfaction Survey (CSS) were distributed by mail to 1284 adults fitted with government-funded hearing aids three to six months previously. 1014 surveys were returned. The mean age of participants was 75.32 years; 54.4% of participants were male, and 54.8% were fitted binaurally. Participants were fitted primarily with digitally programmable hearing aids of various styles (22.5% BTEs, 34.8% ITEs, 41.8% ITCs, 0.9% nonstandard [NS] devices). Overall, participants reported a considerable level of satisfaction with their devices. SADL Global and subscale scores were significantly higher for the Australian sample than the U.S. norms described by Cox and Alexander (1999).

Objective: To determine the most favorable age for detection of otoacoustic emissions in newborns and for repeated testing., Methods: Observational, retrospective, descriptive study in 2,567 newborns., Results: The incidence of any degree of hearing loss was 7 per thousand newborns. It was proportionately higher in the group that did not have otologic risk factors The distribution of otoacoustic emissions by age groups followed a significant linear trend in the first month of life. The time lapse to obtain a positive result on the second otoacoustic emission test was 6 days from the first one., Conclusions: Otoacoustic emission screening should be performed in all newborns as late as possible after birth (from the first 48 hours after birth), but before hospital discharge for the test to be effective and efficient. A repeat test, if required, must be performed at least six days after failing the first one.

In this paper, the need for priority setting in rehabilitation, especially in audiology, and various approaches to providing information for priority setting are discussed. A set of outcome measures is proposed, and their applicability to vertical and horizontal prioritization are considered. Two types of measures are proposed: individual problems assessment, and utility analysis. Results from a European multicentre study and a Swedish study illustrate the performance of the measures in the areas of mobility, hearing, and speech communication. For rehabilitation in the hard-of-hearing, the two types of measures provide different kinds of information, illustrated by the results of simultaneous use of the instruments.

Neonatal hearing screening can be performed using reliable and reproducible methods. Intervention before the age of 6 months with hearing aids and appropriate educational support services will give the infant the best possible opportunity to develop language. Potential barriers to efficient implementation of a neonatal hearing screening program include access to appropriate and timely diagnostic and support services and insurance to cover the services. Without universal neonatal hearing screening, many children with hearing loss will be missed, which will have a direct negative impact on their speech, language, educational, and social development.

In Germany, congenital hearing disorders are usually detected too late resulting in insufficient therapy of the disorder. To investigate these problems, the Federal Ministry of Health and the principal associations of statutory health insurance commissioned a pre-operative study. The study's aim is to verify whether introduction of a universal new-born hearing screening results in earlier diagnosis of hearing disorders and thus improves medical care for children with impaired hearing. Feasibility, effectiveness and economic tenability of this hearing screening programme will be investigated. The study is realised in the Hanover region and aims at carrying out a hearing test in all new-born during the first days of life. The tests will be performed in all 10 birth clinics and 2 paediatric clinics in the relevant region and in 24 otolaryngological practices. Hearing ability is controlled via an automated screening device measuring otoacoustic emissions. Sensitivity and specificity of the test is more than 95%. Economical feasibility is investigated by cost-effectiveness analyses. During a 6-month period the screening has been implemented in all clinics in every day routine. The mean coverage rate in the clinics has been stabilised to 97% of the total number. 4.7% of the children were presumed to suffer from unilateral hearing disorders and 2.3% from bilateral. In 13 cases the diagnosis of hearing disorder was confirmed. The mean age of diagnosis in these children was 3.7 months. The average age of therapy onset was 4.4 months. According to the present experience, area-wide implementation of hearing screening seems feasible in existing health care structures. The intention to advance the time of diagnosis and the therapy onset can be achieved by this method. Systematic training, introduction and quality assurance measures of screening are mandatory. Tracking of suspicious cases is necessary, even if it challenges data privacy regulations.

The aim of the present study was to systematically review the clinical and cost effectiveness of hearing aids which use digital signal processing relative to other forms of hearing aid technology, in particular analogue-based aids. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover trials and economic studies was undertaken. Trial quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Eight trials comparing digital to non-digital devices were identified--one randomized controlled trial and seven randomized crossover trials. The majority of these studies were of small sample size and of poor methodological quality. In the majority of cases (nine out of 13), there was no evidence of a significant difference in either laboratory scores (nine out of 13 outcomes assessed) or user function/quality of life scores (six out of nine outcomes assessed) between digital and non-digital devices. In addition, there was no significant difference in patient preference for digital compared to control aids (relative risk 1.93; 95% CI 0.70-5.35) when pooled across studies. No cost-effectiveness studies directly comparing digital to non-digital devices were identified. In conclusion, the evidence identified by this review provides no significant evidence of the clinical benefit of digital devices compared to analogue-based aids. However, these results are difficult to generalize to current UK practice as the analogue aids and types of fitting in the trials are not those typically used in the NHS.

The value associated with self-perceived hearing aid benefit was assessed using a "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) approach. Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) data were obtained from 79 veterans who also indicated how much they were willing to pay for each hearing aid. The results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that veterans were willing to pay $22.06 more for a hearing aid for each 1-point increase in APHAB global benefit. A second multiple regression analysis revealed that the APHAB subscale scores for Ease of Communication (EC) benefit and understanding speech in Background Noise (BN) benefit, as well as income level, were all significant predictors of WTP. In addition, each 1-point increase in EC, BN, and Reverberation benefit increased the value associated with amplification by $16.32, $16.88, and $13.78, respectively. Each 1-point increase in the Aversiveness of Sounds subscale decreased the value associated with amplification by $7.63. The mean WTP across all income groups was $981.71 per hearing aid. These data are interpreted to support the use of WTP as a valid measure of hearing aid benefit.

Objective: To estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening., Study Design and Setting: Decision analysis model utilizing the hospital perspective. This model evaluated 4 distinct protocols for screening a fixed and defined hypothetical cohort of newborn infants., Outcome Measures: Cost of screening and the number of infants with hearing loss identified through universal screening., Results: Otoacoustic emissions testing at birth followed by repeat testing at follow up demonstrated the lowest cost ($13 per infant) and had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio ($5100 per infant with hearing loss identified). Screening auditory brainstem evoked response testing at birth with no screening test at follow-up was the only protocol with greater effectiveness, but it also demonstrated the highest cost ($25 per infant) and highest cost-effectiveness ratio ($9500 per infant with hearing loss identified). These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis, including best-case and worst-case estimation. The prevalence of hearing loss and the fraction of infants returned for follow-up testing had a large impact on the absolute level, but not relative level of protocol cost and cost-effectiveness., Conclusion: The otoacoustic emissions testing protocol should be selected by screening programs concerned with cost and cost-effectiveness, although there are certain caveats to consider., Significance: The most significant barriers to implementation of universal newborn hearing screening programs have been financial, and this study compares the most common protocols currently in use. This study can assist program directors not only in the decision to initiate universal screening but also in their choice of screening protocol.

In developing countries, there is a lack of trained personnel and testing equipment to facilitate the early detection of hearing impairment in children. A questionnaire offers a low cost option and the value of this for detecting hearing impairment in pre-school children was determined in several districts in Kenya. The questionnaire was completed by either teachers, parents/carers or community nurses. The children were subsequently tested using pure tone audiometry and visual examination of the ear by ENT Clinical Officers, who were not given prior access to the results of the questionnaire. A total of 757 (88%) questionnaires were completed. Of the 735 children, who could be tested using pure tone audiometry, four were found to have a unilateral hearing impairment and one was detected by the questionnaire. A total of 13 children had a bilateral hearing impairment >40 dB HL. All were detected using the questionnaire. There were eight males and five females with ages ranging from 4.2 to 6.9 years, mean age 5.7 years and median age 5.8 years. Eight had a sensorineural hearing impairment and two a mixed hearing impairment. Three of the children with a sensorineural hearing loss had a family history of hearing impairment. No question detected all children with a hearing impairment and some questions were more discerning than others. There was 100% sensitivity for the questionnaire when a hearing loss of >40 dB was considered, but specificity was lower at 75%. Negative predictive value was 100%, but the positive predictive value was low, 6.75%. It was concluded that a questionnaire of this nature could be usefully applied at Primary Health Care level for detecting hearing impairment at the pre-school stage. There would be need for services available for diagnosis, treatment and habilitation before a screening programme was introduced.

The terms 'sensitivity' and 'specificity' are defined and some of the factors that determine their values are discussed in the context of screening for permanent childhood hearing loss. There is a need to distinguish between the values observed in 'simple experiments' and those that may be obtained under more realistic 'field' conditions. It is not feasible to give a meta-analytic overview of published data because of the variety of methods and objectives used in those studies published in the literature. However, a qualitative synthesis of the data is possible. This suggests that most proposed neonatal hearing screening tests, when implemented in accordance with a programme of quality assurance, can be reasonably accurate at a modest cost. However, the optimal combination of tests and test parameters for given populations has not yet been fully researched. The infant distraction test screen has a lower sensitivity than neonatal hearing screening tests, particularly for moderate impairments, accompanied by a fairly low specificity.

This article describes some of the factors relevant to the establishment of a universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program. First, the difficulty in providing precise estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are reviewed. This section is followed by hypothetical estimates of overall programmatic costs, first for a fixed number of babies to be screened and then as a function of the number of babies to be screened in a year. Included in these estimates are the costs for equipment, disposables, personnel, and follow-up testing. These estimates are provided for three different screening protocols: auditory brainstem response (ABR) alone, otoacoustic emission (OAE) alone, and OAE followed by ABR only for those babies who failed the OAE screening. If follow-up costs are not included, it is less expensive to screen newborns with OAEs compared with the other two protocols. However, once follow-up testing is included as part of the program costs and there are at least 400 births per year, procedures in which OAEs are performed first, followed by an ABR on those infants who do not pass the OAE test, result in the lowest costs. Hospitals with as few as 400 births per year should expect per-baby costs not exceeding $30, regardless of which protocol is used. For all three protocols, the unit costs decrease as the number of babies screened increases. The final section describes data from a local UNHS program in which all infants are screened first with an OAE test, followed by an ABR test on infants not passing the OAE screening. Idiosyncratic features to this program are described, including the fact that all screening tests are performed by audiologists, who are paid on a part-time basis, adding cost to the program. Even under these circumstances, the unit cost is under $30. These data lead us to conclude that all infants can be screened in a cost-effective manner.

Calculations of the needs of healthcare, hearing healthcare included, are usually based on clinical data rather than on valid prevalence figures. According to our recent population study, the number of citizens needing hearing aids in Finland will be twice the figure usually presented, 280 000 for the country as a whole (population 5.1 million). The penetration of hearing aids was only 41%. Taking this and the ageing of the population into account, the economic challenges of hearing healthcare will be alarming in the new millennium.

The present paper reports on the implementation of a maternity based neonatal hearing-screening program in a private hospital. A retrospective analysis is performed on the test pass rate, the coverage and the number of children that become lost to follow-up. The data show a steady learning curve with a time course of several years. In the current screening practice, the test pass rate is at 99.0%, the coverage is at 96% (birth rate of 2000 per annum) and almost no babies get lost to follow-up.