Prevalence of hearing loss and health vulnerability in children aged 25 to 36 months: an analysis of spatial distribution.
Aline Aparecida Lopes, Amélia Augusta de Lima Friche, Stela Maris Aguiar Lemos and 6 others
PMID 38055408WHAT IT FOUND
No significant link was found between hearing loss and health vulnerability in 95 Brazilian toddlers.
However, 48.4% failed screening, yet nearly half did not attend the follow-up diagnostic assessment, leaving the true prevalence of hearing loss unknown.
Key findings
01The study found no statistically significant association between hearing loss and the Health Vulnerability Index.
02Nearly half of the screened children failed the initial hearing test, but almost half of those referred did not attend the diagnostic assessment.
03Among the 26 children who completed the diagnostic assessment, 10.5% of the total sample had conductive hearing loss.
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
Almost half of the children referred for diagnostic assessment did not attend, meaning the prevalence of hearing loss is based on a small, self-selected subset of those who failed screening. The study was underpowered to detect associations with Health Vulnerability, as the sample size was determined for a larger project and only 95 children participated. The high failure rate on screening (48.4%) may reflect transient conductive issues (like otitis media) rather than permanent hearing loss, which was not fully resolved in the untested group. Some children could not be conditioned for audiometry, limiting the ability to assess hearing thresholds in a portion of the sample.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by CAPES/Cofecub announcement no. 19/2014.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 10.5% prevalence of conductive hearing loss as the true rate in the population. This figure only includes children who attended the follow-up assessment; nearly half of those referred did not show up, so the actual prevalence could be significantly higher or lower.