Children's Hearing Health Panorama in the Unified Health System in the state of Sergipe.
Josilene Luciene Duarte, Kelly da Silva, Fabiana Cristina Carlino and 4 others
PMID 38126548WHAT IT FOUND
In Sergipe, newborn hearing screening reached 27.7% of births from 2012 to 2020, below the 95% goal.
Among 25 children in therapy, average time in months for each stage was 16.1 at diagnosis, 26.1 at devices, and 26.4 at therapy.
Key findings
01Neonatal hearing screening coverage in Sergipe was 27.7% of live births from 2012 to 2020.
02At the reference center, 45.8% of newborns with risk indicators for hearing loss did not return for BAEP, and 0.9% of those without risk indicators did not return after a failed screening.
03For 25 children in speech therapy, average times in months for each stage were 6.8 at screening, 16.1 at diagnosis, 26.1 at devices, and 26.4 at therapy.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study describes one Brazilian state, so it cannot be treated as evidence for all children or for therapy effectiveness. No institution had a usable database, and medical records contained very little information, so long-term quality indicators could not be managed. The interview sample was only 25 children receiving therapy, and it was collected in 2020, so it may not represent all children in the state. One invited rehabilitation center was excluded because it had recently been authorized and had no hearing loss service flow. DATASUS codes could not separate the under-three age group for hearing assessment and device supply, so those percentages are not age-specific. The hypothesis about retro-cochlear hearing loss could not be confirmed because diagnostic evaluations were not accessible in a digitized database.
Declared interests
Funding was from FAPITEC grant nº 850226/2017MS/CNPq/FAPITEC/SE/SES(PPSUS2017). The article does not state author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that any screening or rehabilitation model improves speech or hearing outcomes. It describes service coverage and timing in one state, and the therapy-stage averages come from interviews with 25 children, not from a controlled trial.