medigraphic.com
ISSN 1527-3172 (Electronic)

2009, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

MEDICC Review 2009; 11 (1)

A 25-Year review of Cuba’s screening program for early detection of hearing loss

Pérez AMC, Gaya VJA, Savio LG, Perera GM, Ponce de León MM, Sánchez CM

Language: English
References: 50
Page: 21-28
PDF size: 260.57 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction Early screening for hearing loss is currently recognized as an international healthcare standard. In Cuba, such a program was initiated in the capital, Havana, in 1983 and scaled up to national coverage in 1991.
Objective Review the development of Cuba’s national hearing screening program over the last 25 years (organizational structure, efficiency, coverage and impact on health), and the science and technology developed to sustain it.
Intervention The program was organized in two steps: Step 1—clinical selection of children at different stages of development with multiple high-risk registers; Step 2—referral to territorial, hospitalbased centers for auditory brainstem evoked response (ABR) testing, diagnostic evaluation, and intervention. Prior to national scaling-up, the efficiency of this multiple targeted screening (MTS) protocol was evaluated in Havana. Technology and equipment were then developed, and personnel were trained to set up the national screening network. In 1996, the multiple auditory steady-state evoked response (MSSR) technique for objective audiogram estimation was introduced using AUDIX equipment, designed and produced in Cuba for this program. A semi-automated version for neonatal screening has been developed more recently. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the program’s efficiency, coverage, yield, and impact on health.
Results During the first stage of implementation in Havana, the MTS protocol correctly identified 72.5% of children with congenital and preverbal hearing loss. Subsequent studies of different aspects of the program have shown that: 1) the mean age of hearing loss detection/ intervention in one municipality was reduced from 4 years to 10 months; 2) hearing-impaired children who were screened showed improved language and cognitive development compared to those who were not screened; 3) the MSSR technique predicted type and severity of hearing loss more accurately than physiological techniques used previously and was also shown to be an effective screening method (92% to 96% sensitivity, 100% specificity); and 4) program coverage (25-86%), though reasonably high in some regions, is not complete and needs improvement, particularly in the country’s remote and rural areas.
Conclusions The MTS protocol can be considered a valid option for increasing the yield and effectiveness of a hearing screening program operating with limited resources. The MSSR technique provides valuable data for the diagnosis and treatment of children detected through a screening program and, with improvements, may also be useful as a screening method.


REFERENCES

  1. Davidson J, Hyde ML, Alberti PW. Epidemiologic patterns in childhood hearing loss: a review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1989;17:226-39.

  2. Mauk GW, Cags MA, Behrens TR. Historical, political and technological context associated with early identification of hearing loss. Ear Hear. 1993;14:2-10.

  3. Stein LK, Jabaley T, Spitz R, Stoakley D, McGee T. The hearing-impairment infants: patterns of identification and habilitation revisited. Ear Hear. 1990;11:201-5.

  4. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing: Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2000;106:798-816.

  5. Colectivo de Autores. Por la Vida. Havana: Abril, 2003.

  6. Pérez MC, Rodríguez C, Ponce de León M, Viera C, Aguiar M, Eimil E. Pesquisaje auditivo en niños egresados de unidades de cuidados intensivos pediátricas. Estudios Avanzados de Neurociencias. CENIC. 1987; Suppl:560-71.

  7. Pérez MC, Perera M, Bobes M, Valdés M, Sánchez M. Ensayo de pesquisaje auditivo en Ciudad Habana. Rev Cub Invest Biomed. 1988;7:60-74.

  8. Pérez MC, Gaya J, Savio G, Ponce de León M, Perera M, Reigosa V. Diagnóstico e intervención temprana de los trastornos de la audición: Una experiencia cubana de 20 años. Rev Neurol. 2005;41:556-63.

  9. Kurtzer D, Hilpert P, Kreutzer J, Vaugham H. Differential maturation of cortical auditory evoked potential to speech sounds in normal full term and very low birth weight infants. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1984;26:466-75.

  10. Webster D. Auditory neural sizes after a unilateral conductive hearing loss. Exp Neurol. 1983;79:130-40.

  11. Davis JM, Elfebeim J, Schum R, Bentler RA. Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language educational and psycho-social behaviour of children. J Speech Hear Disord. 1986;51:53-62.

  12. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coulter DK, Mehl AL. Language of early and later identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1998;102:1161-71.

  13. Reigosa V, Pérez MC, Hernández D, de la Osa M, Savio G, Rodríguez M, et al. Efectos de la detección temprana sobre el desarrollo psicosocial y lingüístico de niños con pérdidas auditivas permanentes. Revista CENIC/Ciencias Biológicas. 2002;33:99-105.

  14. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007;120:898-921.

  15. Davis A, Bamford J, Wilson I, Ramkalawan T, Forshaw M, Wright S. A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1:1-176.

  16. Mencher GT, Davis AC, DeVoe S, Beresford D, Bamford J. Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening: past, present and future. Am J Audiol. 2001;10:1-10.

  17. Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nyren P. Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US preventive services task force recommendation. Pediatrics. 2008;122:266-76.

  18. Jewett DL, Romano MN, Wilson JS. Human auditory evoked potentials: Possible brainstem components detected on the scalp. Science. 1970;167:1517-8.

  19. Kemp D. Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;64:1386-9.

  20. Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Widen JE. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: Evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product and auditory brainstem response test performance. Ear Hear. 2000;21:508-28.

  21. Stapells DR, Picton TW. Technical aspects of brainstem evoked potentials audiometry using tones. Ear Hear. 1981;2:20-9.

  22. Galambos R, Hicks G, Wilson M. The auditory brainstem response reliably predicts hearing loss in graduates of a tertiary intensive care nursery. Ear Hear. 1984;5:254-60.

  23. Hyde ML, Riko K, Malizia K. Audiometric accuracy of click ABR in infants at risk for hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 1990;1:59-66.

  24. Durieux-Smith A, Picton TW, Edwards JT, Mac- Murray B, Goodman JT. Brainstem electric response audiometry in infants of a neonatal intensive care unit. Audiology. 1987; 26:284-97.

  25. Manzano M, Piñeiro A, Perera M. Asimilación y modificación de un test de pesquisaje para detectar tempranamente trastornos del lenguaje. Rev Cubana Psicol. 1997;14:120-8.

  26. Martín V, Báez O, Jiménez JC. Neuronica: sistema para la adquisición y análisis de señales bioeléctricas. In: Gutiérrez C, editor. Estudios Avanzados en Neurociencias. Havana: CENIC;1987. p.134-41.

  27. Valdés M, Bobes M, Pérez MC, Perera M, Carballo JA, Valdés P. Comparison of auditoryevoked potential detection methods using signal detection theory. Audiology. 1987;722:166-78.

  28. Bobes M, Valdés M, Pérez MC. Efecto de diferentes métodos de extracción de potenciales evocados sobre la relación señal ruido. Rev Cubana Ciencias Biolog. 1988;(1)2.

  29. Pérez MC, Perera M, Bobes M, Valdés M, Sánchez M. Caracterización de los potenciales evocados auditivos de tallo cerebral en lactantes cubanos. Rev Cubana Invest Biomed. 1986;5:419-29.

  30. Sanabria C, Pérez MC, Padrón O. Uso de la programación lógica en la interpretación de potenciales evocados auditivos de tallo cerebral. Rev Cubana Ciencias Biolog. 1988;19:189-91.

  31. Pérez MC, Valdés M, Bobes M, Galán L, Biscay R. Different functional properties of ON and OFF components in the auditory brainstem to tonebursts. Audiology. 1988;27:249-59.

  32. Lins OG, Picton TW, Boucher BL, Durieux-Smith A, Champagne SC, Moran LM, et al. Frequencyspecific audiometry using steady-state responses. Ear Hear. 1996;17:81-96.

  33. Cone-Wesson B, Parker J, Swiderski N, Rickards F. The auditory steady-state response: full-term and premature neonates. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13:260-9.

  34. Rance G, Roper R, Symons L, Moody LJ, Poulis C, Dourlay M, et al. Hearing threshold estimation in infants using auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:291-300.

  35. Pérez MC, Torres A, Savio G, Eimil E. Los potenciales evocados auditivos de estado estable a múltiples frecuencias y su valor en la evaluación objetiva de la audición. AUDITIO Revista Electrónica de Audiología. 2003 Nov;2(2):42-50.

  36. Valdés JL, Pérez MC, Martin V, Savio G, Sierra C, Rodriguez E, et al. Comparison of statistical indicators for the automatic detection of 80 Hz auditory steady state responses. Ear Hear. 1997;18:420-9.

  37. Lins OG, Picton TW. Auditory steady-state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;96:420-32.

  38. Pérez MC, Savio G, Torres A, Martin V, Rodriguez E, Galan L. An optimized method to test frequency specific thresholds in hearing impaired children and normal subjects. Ear Hear. 2001;22:200-11.

  39. Biscay LR, Clark DI, Pérez MC. Maximum likelihood estimation of signal detection model parameters for the assessment of two stage diagnostic strategies. Int J Biomed Comput. 1992;31:117-26.

  40. Mauk GW, White KR, Mortensen LB. The effectiveness of screening programs based on high risk characteristics in early identification of hearing loss. Ear Hear. 1991;12:312-9.

  41. Parving A. Looking for the hearing-impaired child: Past, present and future. In: Seewald RC, Gravel J, editors. A sound foundation through early amplification 2001. Proceedings of the Second International Conference, sponsored by Phonak; 2001. p. 251-9.

  42. Lantigua Cruz A, Portuondo Sao M, Collazo Mesa T, Lardoyet Ferrer R. Epidemiology of prenatal genetic and enviromental factors of mental retardation in Cuba. MEDICC Review. 2008;10(1):29-36.

  43. Valett ER. Evaluación del Desarrollo de las Aptitudes Básicas para el Aprendizaje. Madrid: TEA;1987.

  44. Luts H, Desloovere C, Kumar A, Vandermeersch E, Wouters J. Objective assessment of frequency-specific hearing thresholds in babies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68:915-26.

  45. Rance G, Tomlin D. Maturation of auditory steady-state responses in normal babies. Ear Hear. 2006;27:20-9.

  46. Savio G, Pérez MC, Gaya J, Hernández O, Mijares E. Test accuracy and prognostic validity of multiple auditory steady state responses for targeted hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:109-20.

  47. Santos E, Pérez MC. Sistema semi-automático para el pesquisaje auditivo en recién nacidos sobre el electroaudiómetro Audix V. In: Book Series IFBM. Part I. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer;2008. p.122-6.

  48. Savio G, Cárdenas J, Pérez MC, González A, Valdés J. The low and high frequency auditory steady state responses mature at different rates. Audiol Neurootol. 2001;6:279-87.

  49. Savio G, Mijares E, Pérez MC, Vega M, Lage A, Hernández D. Eficiencia de la detección automática de Potenciales Evocados Auditivos de Estado Estable a Múltiples Frecuencias evaluada mediante la metodología ROC. Rev Logop Fon Audiol. 2007;27:12-23.

  50. Savio G, Pérez-Abalo MC. The Auditory Steady- State Response: generation, recording and clinical application. In: Rance G, editor. ASSRs and Hearing Screening. San Diego: Plural Publishing;2007. p.185-99.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com