Bénédicte Vos

Main outcomes of a newborn hearing screening program in Belgium over six years

OBJECTIVE To present the outcomes of the newborn hearing screening program in Belgium (French-speaking area) since its implementation and to analyze its evolution between 2007 and 2012 in the neonatal population without reported risk factors for hearing loss. METHODS The study was descriptive and based on a retrospective analysis of six annual databases (2007-2012) from the newborn hearing screening program. The main outcomes were identified: prevalence of reported hearing impairment; coverage rates (first and second test, follow-up); proportions of conclusive screening tests; referral rate. Each outcome was presented for the six years and by year of birth. Chi-squares were used to study differences in the various outcomes according to time. RESULTS Over the six years, 264,508 newborns were considered as eligible for the screening. Hearing impairment was confirmed in 1.41‰ (n = 374) of them, with significant disparities from year to year, between 0.67‰ and 1.94‰. Analysis of the screening process showed that only 92.71% (n = 245,219) of the eligible newborns underwent a first hearing test. This coverage rate varied greatly over time: at the beginning, less than 90% of the newborns had a first test and it rose to almost 95%. After the two screening steps, 2.40% (n = 6340) of the newborns were referred to an ENT doctor; the referral rate slightly decreased during the first years of the program and then stabilized around 2.4%. Over the period, only 62.21% of the referred newborns had a follow-up; the follow-up rate was particularly low for the first year (44.91%) and then strongly increased (+19.52% in 2008) but never exceeded 70%. CONCLUSIONS Outcome measures for the newborn hearing screening program in Belgium are lower than the benchmarks released by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Nevertheless, the evolution of the outcome measures since the implementation of the program has been positive, particularly during the first years. At some point, most of the outcome measures decreased or at least did not change any further. The motivation and commitment of the professionals have to be supported in a variety of ways to improve outcome measures and thus, the quality of the program.

Newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium: a consensus recommendation on risk factors.

BackgroundUnderstanding the risk factors for hearing loss is essential for designing the Belgian newborn hearing screening programme. Accordingly, they needed to be updated in accordance with current scientific knowledge. This study aimed to update the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns with neonatal risk factors of hearing loss for the newborn screening programme in Belgium.MethodsA literature review was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessment method was used to determine the level of evidence quality and strength of the recommendation for each risk factor. The state of scientific knowledge, levels of evidence quality, and graded recommendations were subsequently assessed using a three-round Delphi consensus process (two online questionnaires and one face-to-face meeting).ResultsCongenital infections (i.e., cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, and syphilis), a family history of hearing loss, consanguinity in (grand)parents, malformation syndromes, and foetal alcohol syndrome presented a ‘high’ level of evidence quality as neonatal risk factors for hearing loss. Because of the sensitivity of auditory function to bilirubin toxicity, hyperbilirubinaemia was assessed at a ‘moderate’ level of evidence quality. In contrast, a very low birth weight, low Apgar score, and hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit ranged from ‘very low’ to ‘low’ levels, and ototoxic drugs were evidenced as ‘very low’. Possible explanations for these ‘very low’ and ‘low’ levels include the improved management of these health conditions or treatments, and methodological weaknesses such as confounding effects, which make it difficult to conclude on individual risk factors. In the recommendation statements, the experts emphasised avoiding unidentified neonatal hearing loss and opted to include risk factors for hearing loss even in cases with weak evidence. The panel also highlighted the cumulative effect of risk factors for hearing loss.ConclusionsWe revised the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns exhibiting neonatal risk factors for hearing loss on the basis of the aforementioned evidence-based approach and clinical experience from experts. The next step is the implementation of these findings in the Belgian screening programme.

Putting newborn hearing screening on the political agenda in Belgium: local initiatives toward a community programme - a qualitative study.

BackgroundThe Kingdon model, based on the convergence of three streams (problem, policy, and politics) and the opening of a policy window, analyses the process by which a health issue is placed on the political agenda. We used this model to document the political agenda-setting process of the newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium.MethodsA qualitative study based on a document review and on semi-directed interviews was carried out. The interviews were conducted with nine people who had played a role in putting the issue in question on the political agenda, and the documents reviewed included scientific literature and internal reports and publications from the newborn hearing screening programme. The thematic analysis of the data collected was carried out on the basis of the Kingdon model’s three streams.ResultsThe political agenda-setting of this screening programme was based on many factors. The problem stream included factors external to the context under study, such as the technological developments and the contribution of the scientific literature which led to the recommendation to provide newborn hearing screening. The two other streams (policy and politics) covered factors internal to the Belgian context. The fact that it was locally feasible with financial support, the network of doctors convinced of the need for newborn hearing screening, the drafting of various proposals, and the search for financing were all part of the policy stream. The Belgian political context and the policy opportunities concerning preventive medicine were identified as significant factors in the third stream. When these three streams converged, a policy window opened, allowing newborn hearing screening onto the political agenda and enabling the policy decision for its introduction.ConclusionsThe advantage of applying the Kingdon model in our approach was the ability to demonstrate the political agenda-setting process, using the three streams. This made it possible to identify the many factors involved in the process. However, the roles of the stakeholders and of the context were somewhat inexplicit in this model.