SLPCohortCoDAS2023

Maternal and child predictors associated with loss to follow-up in the newborn hearing screening program: a cohort study in maternity hospitals in northeastern Brazil.

Maria Helena Medeiros de Sá Lima Lucena, Hannalice Gottschalck Cavalcanti

PMID 37703112

WHAT IT FOUND

Mothers with five or fewer prenatal visits were 2.3 times more likely to be lost to follow-up after newborn hearing screening.

Infants with a family history of hearing loss were 2.1 times more likely to be lost to follow-up.

Key findings

01Of 604 newborns referred for monitoring or diagnosis after hearing screening, 365 (60.4%) were lost to follow-up.

02Five or fewer prenatal visits was associated with loss to follow-up (OR = 2.343; 95% CI = 1.626 to 3.376; reported as 2.3 times greater likelihood).

03A family history of hearing loss was associated with loss to follow-up (OR = 2.167; 95% CI = 1.507 to 3.115; reported as 2.1 times greater chance).

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was limited to two maternity hospitals in one city, so it may not represent other regions in Brazil or all newborn hearing screening programs. The data came from records, so missing or inaccurate information could have affected the results. The study excluded infants with life-threatening conditions transferred to intensive care. The analysis did not cover losses that happened before the monitoring or diagnosis phase. The adjusted model used 555 infants, while 604 infants were referred for follow-up. The study did not explain why families dropped out. The study did not test whether changing prenatal care or family history would change follow-up.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that more prenatal visits or absence of family history of hearing loss will reduce loss to follow-up. The study was retrospective and found associations in two hospitals, not a tested intervention.

Read it on PubMed →