Quality of universal newborn hearing screening programs vs guidelines: a systematic review (Comunicazione a convegno)

Type
Label
  • Quality of universal newborn hearing screening programs vs guidelines: a systematic review (Comunicazione a convegno) (literal)
Anno
  • 2013-01-01T00:00:00+01:00 (literal)
Alternative label
  • Mincarone Pierpaolo1, Leo Giacomo Carlo2, Sabina Saverio3, Costantini Daniele4, Wong John B5, Latini Giuseppe6 (2013)
    Quality of universal newborn hearing screening programs vs guidelines: a systematic review
    in Joint Conference 2nd Conference of International Society for EBHC - 6th International Conference for EBHC Teachers and Developers, Taormina (CT) - Italy, 30th October - 2nd November 2013
    (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#autori
  • Mincarone Pierpaolo1, Leo Giacomo Carlo2, Sabina Saverio3, Costantini Daniele4, Wong John B5, Latini Giuseppe6 (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#url
  • http://www.ebhc.org/files/EBHC_2013_Joint_Conference-Abstract_book.pdf (literal)
Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#affiliazioni
  • 1National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Rome, Italy, 2National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology -Unit of Health Technology Assessment, Epidemiology and Communication, Lecce, Italy, 3Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Division of Clinical Decision Making, Boston, MA, USA, 4USL7 Siena, Italy, 5Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA, Division of Neonatology, Perrino Hospital, 6ASL BR, Brindisi, Italy (literal)
Titolo
  • Quality of universal newborn hearing screening programs vs guidelines: a systematic review (literal)
Abstract
  • BACKGROUNDBecause congenital hearing loss is the most frequent birth defect, Universal Newborn Hearing Screening-UNHS programs have developed worldwide. The availability of internationally recognized process indicators and benchmarks (American Academy of Pediatrics-AAP, 1999, and Joint Committee on Infant Hearing-JCIH, 2000 and 2007), permit the exploration of quality issues. AIMS To systematically review and assess the extent to which scientific literature reports enough data to calculate indicators and consequently verify compliance with AAP and JCIH benchmarks. METHODSA search from four databases, supplemented by scanning reference lists of articles and experts' suggestions, was performed. Two independent reviewers assessed articles against criteria: primary studies on UNHS, in English, with a screening protocol description and performance data, with = 1,000 screened neonates. Articles were analyzed using seven process indicators classified into three dimensions: Recruitment and Adhesion (2 indicators), Clinical Effectiveness (2), Resource Consumption (3). RESULTS1,400 articles were included and 14 analyzed. Main findings: two compliant with 5% lost to follow-up (Recruitment and Adhesion); age at diagnosis critical as calculated rarely and following different methods (Clinical Effectiveness); referral rate at discharge calculable in 12 articles (Resource Consumption). LIMITS Our criteria were based on standards established starting from February 1999, so some of the considered studies concluded their recruitment period before that date. Nonetheless, this review was not intended to formulate a full evaluation of the quality of screening programs but only to verify whether a standardized evaluation of UNHS program performances was possible, based on indicators and benchmarks suggested by the AAP and JCIH. A second limitation is the restriction to articles written in English. CONCLUSIONS The analysis highlights the non-uniformity of UNHS programs' quality key-drivers: identification of newborns at risk, number of stages and steps, technique applicability, follow-up eligibility thresholds, competences, and surroundings. Program performance comparison, though potentially feasible through internationally recognized indicators and benchmarks, is hampered as all required information is rarely available. This hinders the work of clinical and regulatory practitioners wishing to gather indications for quality improvement from best practices. (literal)
Prodotto di
Autore CNR

Incoming links:


Prodotto
Autore CNR di
data.CNR.it