Journal of early hearing detection and intervention最新文献

Guidelines created by the American Academy of Pediatrics ([AAP], 2010) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing ([JCIH], 2019) were designed to aid in the early identification of infant hearing loss. Despite these guidelines, a quarter of children who do not pass their initial screening are lost to the follow-up process and many more do not receive care in line with the 1-3-6 guidelines (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018; JCIH, 2019). To acquire more information about the experiences of families and identify specific barriers to timely diagnosis and intervention, interviews were conducted with 13 parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing whose children were enrolled in a larger longitudinal study. These interviews revealed common themes regarding delayed identification, frustrations about timely intervention, and confusion when choosing communication modalities. Common themes amongst families who felt well-supported were also identified.

The study compares receipt and timeliness of newborn hearing screening and follow-up diagnostic services between the pre-pandemic birth cohort and the pandemic birth cohort in four participating states. Findings from this study will help inform state Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs in the future should a major public health event occur again.

This perspective aims to highlight aspects of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) newborn hearing screening and follow-up processes that were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and considers factors that likely impacted follow-up after failing newborn hearing screening among infants born in the United States during 2020. Efforts to minimize the potential impact of missed or delayed identification of hearing loss in infants and young children will also be discussed to help guide future program improvement activities.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of hearing screening, diagnosis, and early intervention (EI) by 3 months or 6 months of age on language growth trajectories for children with hearing loss (HL) relative to children with normal hearing (NH).

Method: We recruited 133 children with mild to severe HL through universal newborn hearing screening records and referrals from audiologists in the United States and 116 children with NH who served as a comparison group. Examiners administered a battery of developmentally appropriate language measures between 12 months and 8 years of age. We constructed latent growth curve models of global language, grammar, and vocabulary using Bayesian statistics.

Results: Children with HL demonstrated no significant differences in initial language skills compared to children with NH. Children in the 1-3-6 group also showed no difference in language growth compared to children with NH. The slope for the 1-2-3 group was significantly steeper than children with NH for global language and grammar.

Conclusions: This study documents the positive impact of EI on language outcomes in children with congenital HL. It is among the first to provide evidence to support the potential effects of very early intervention by 3 months of age.

Purpose: To describe an evaluation conducted by 39 state Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs on the reporting process and system usability for audiologists when reporting the hearing test results to the EHDI program and the barriers encountered during reporting.

Method: Each author independently extracted numbers, percentages, and texts from the evaluation reports into an Excel spreadsheet, which then became the dataset. Authors then compared and cross-checked the datasets before coding. Texts conveying similar concepts were coded with the same name and organized into categories. Finally, thematic identification and analysis were performed when a theme(s) or concept(s) that pertained to similar challenges encountered by audiologists was identified and organized under a higher-order domain.

Results: Some audiologists reported no barriers when reporting hearing test results to the state EHDI programs. Among those audiologists who reported barriers, the most recurrent barrier was a non-user-friendly data system design. The second most recurrent barrier was not having adequate administrative time to report data as a busy clinician. The third most recurrent barrier was an incomplete understanding of the state EHDI reporting requirements. Finally, the method audiologists were required to use when reporting results also posed some challenges, such as no internet connection in rural areas when required to report via an internet portal.

Conclusion: Because of the wide variety of barriers faced by audiologists, multiple strategies to improve the reporting process would likely be beneficial.

The purpose of this study was to learn more about the beliefs and self-efficacy of parents of young children with hearing loss. Seventy-two parents completed the Scale of Parental Involvement and Self-Efficacy-Revised (SPISE-R), which queries parents about their child's hearing device use and their perceptions of their own beliefs, knowledge, confidence, and actions pertaining to supporting their child's auditory access and spoken language development. Two beliefs were identified that related to parents' action scores and one belief was identified that related to children's hearing device use. Knowledge and confidence scores were significantly correlated with action scores and children's hearing device use, whereas only confidence scores were related to scores on a measure of children's spoken language abilities. Results indicate the SPISE-R is a promising tool for use in early intervention to better understand parents' strengths and needs pertaining to supporting their young child's auditory access and spoken language development.

To improve outcomes for children with hearing loss, early intervention professionals must work with families to optimize children's hearing device use and the linguistic and auditory features of children's environments. Two technologies with potential use in monitoring these domains are data logging and Language Environment Analysis (LENA) technology. This study, which surveyed early intervention providers, had two objectives: (a) to determine whether providers' experiences, perspectives, and current practices indicated there was a need for tools to better monitor these domains, and (b) to gain a better understanding of providers' experiences with and perspectives on use of the two technologies. Most providers reported that they used informal, subjective methods to monitor functioning in the two domains and felt confident that their methods allowed them to know how consistently children on their caseloads were wearing their hearing devices and what their environments were like between intervention visits. Although most providers reported limited personal experience with accessing data logging information and with LENA technology, many reported receiving data logging information from children's audiologists. Providers generally believed access to the technologies could be beneficial, but only if coupled with proper funding for the technology, appropriate training, and supportive administrative policies.