Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:20:43.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSAL NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING AND INTERVENTION IN SHANGHAI, CHINA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Xiuzhi Chen ,
Min Yuan ,
Jun Lu ,
Qi Zhang ,
Mei Sun  and
Fengshui Chang
Xiuzhi Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Fudan University
Min Yuan
Affiliation:
Health and Family Planning Commission of Hongkou
Jun Lu
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Fudan [email protected]
Qi Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Community and Environmental Health, Old Dominion University
Mei Sun
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Fudan University
Fengshui Chang
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Fudan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and intervention program in Shanghai, China.

Methods: This study included the quantitative analyses of the UNHS-Shanghai database in 2002–12 and qualitative assessment of the program. The Otoacoustic Emissions and the Automated Auditory Brainstem Evoked Responses tests were conducted in screening. The costs and benefits were calculated based on the number of participants in each stage. The short-term and long-term periods were defined as from birth to 15 years of age or to death (82-year-olds), respectively. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: A total 1,574,380 newborns were included, representing 93.6 percent of all eligible babies in Shanghai during the study period. The prevalence of newborn hearing loss was 1.66‰. The short-term/long-term program costs were ¥488.5 million (US$75.52 million)/¥1.08 billion (US$167.12 million), and the short-term/long-term program benefit was ¥980.1 million (US$151.53 million)/¥8.13 billion (US$1.26 billion). The program benefit was greater than its cost if the proportion of hearing-loss children enrolled in regular schools was no less than 41.4 percent of all hearing impaired children, as well as if the wage growth rate ranged from 3 percent to 8 percent. Qualitative results also suggested that stakeholders strongly supported this program.

Conclusions: The universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program in Shanghai is justified in terms of the resource input in the long run, although there is still room for further improvement with respect to educational rehabilitation and a better infrastructure system.

Keywords

Universal newborn hearing screening and interventionCost-benefitQualitative assessment
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , 2017 , pp. 206 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Pisacane, A, Auletta, G, Toscano, F, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of a population-based newborn hearing screening in an economically deprived region of Italy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:329-333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Wake, M. Universal newborn hearing screening. Am Fam Phys. 2002;75:1349-1352.Google Scholar
3. Genc, GA, Barmak, E. The Effect of Newborn Hearing Screening on the Development of Newborns with Congenital Hearing Loss. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2012;32:1284-1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Finitzo, T, Sininger, Y, Brookhouser, P, et al. JCIH year 2000 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. ASHA Leader. 2001.Google Scholar
5. Downs, MP, Yoshinaga-Itano, C. The efficacy of early identification and intervention for children with hearing impairment. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1999;46:79-87.Google Scholar
6. Yu, W. The cost and benefit of universal newborn hearing screening. Foreign Med Inf. 1999;37-38.Google Scholar
7. White, KR, Vohr, BR, Behrens, TR. Universal newborn hearing screening using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: Results of the Rhode Island hearing assessment project. Semin Hear. 1993;14:18-29.Google Scholar
8. Grandori, F. European Consensus Statement on Neonatal Hearing Screening. J Laryngol Otol. 1998;88:107-108.Google Scholar
9. Anonymous. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.1994;36:191-196.Google Scholar
10. Calonge, N, Petitti, DB, Dewitt, T.G, et al. Universal screening for hearing loss in newborns: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2008;122:143-148.Google Scholar
11. Vos, B, Lagasse, R, Levêque, A. Main outcomes of a newborn hearing screening program in Belgium over six years. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:1496-1502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. National Health and Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China. Mother and Infant Care Act. http://www.nhfpc.gov.cn/(accessed March 10, 2015).Google Scholar
13. Xu, X, Wang, HF, Peng, YM, et al. The results of newborn hearing screening data of 2378 newborns in Shanghai. Chin J Pediatr. 1997;35:573-574.Google Scholar
14. Shen, XM. Neonatal hearing screening. Chin J Pediatr. 2002;40:56-56.Google Scholar
15. Li, HX. The effect analysis of neonatal hearing screening in Shanghai. Shanghai: Fudan University, 2005.Google Scholar
16. Xu, JQ. Economic Evaluation Method and Parameters of Construction Project (Third version). Chin Eng Cons. 2006;10:8-11.Google Scholar
17. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing; American Academy of Audiology; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies. Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2000;106:798-817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Erenberg, A, Lemons, J, Sia, C, et al. Newborn and infant hearing loss: Detection and intervention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998-1999. Pediatrics. 1999;103:527-530.Google Scholar
19. Ulusoy, S, Ugras, H, Cingi, C, et al. The results of national newborn hearing screening data of 11,575 newborns from west part of turkey. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:2995-3003.Google Scholar
20. Olusanya, BO, Newton, VE. Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priorities for developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369:1314-1317.Google Scholar
21. Gorga, MP, Neely, ST. Cost-effectiveness and test-performance factors in relation to universal newborn hearing screening. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003;9:103-108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Melnick, W, Morgan, W. Hearing compensation evaluation. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1991;24:391-402.Google Scholar
23. education, Lindsay G. Inclusive: A critical perspective. Br J Spec Educ. 2003;30:3-12.Google Scholar
24. Colgan, S, Gold, L, Wirth, K, et al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Newborn Screening for Bilateral Permanent Congenital Hearing Impairment: Systematic Review. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12:171-180.Google Scholar
25. Tobe, RG, Mori, R, Huang, L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a national neonatal hearing screening program in China: Conditions for the scale-up. PLos One. 2012;8:e51990.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chen supplementary material

Tables S1-S3 and Figure S1

Download Chen supplementary material(File)
File 60.3 KB