Trial reportThe Laryngoscope2017
Promotion of early pediatric hearing detection through patient navigation: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in The Laryngoscope, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient navigation programmes for symptomatic lung cancer patients: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of Hearing Health Among Adults in Rural Health Clinics.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Results in Northeastern of Iran from 2005 to 2019: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Risk Factors for Operating Room No-Show in an Academic Otolaryngology Practice.The Laryngoscope · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of hearing screening program for primary school children in southern Iran, Shiraz.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisTo assess the efficacy of a patient navigator intervention to decrease nonadherence to obtain audiological testing following failed screening, compared to those receiving the standard of care.
methodsUsing a randomized controlled design, guardian-infant dyads, in which the infants had abnormal newborn hearing screening, were recruited within the first week after birth. All participants were referred for definitive audiological diagnostic testing. Dyads were randomized into a patient navigator study arm or standard of care arm. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with follow-up nonadherence to obtain diagnostic testing. Secondary outcomes were parental knowledge of infant hearing testing recommendations and barriers in obtaining follow-up testing.
resultsSixty-one dyads were enrolled in the study (patient navigator arm = 27, standard of care arm = 34). The percentage of participants nonadherent to diagnostic follow-up during the first 6 months after birth was significantly lower in the patient navigator arm compared with the standard of care arm (7.4% vs. 38.2%) (P = .005). The timing of initial follow-up was significantly lower in the navigator arm compared with the standard of care arm (67.9 days after birth vs. 105.9 days, P = .010). Patient navigation increased baseline knowledge regarding infant hearing loss diagnosis recommendations compared with the standard of care (P = .004).
conclusionsPatient navigation decreases nonadherence rates following abnormal infant hearing screening and improves knowledge of follow-up recommendations. This intervention has the potential to improve the timeliness of delivery of infant hearing healthcare; future research is needed to assess the cost and feasibility of larger scale implementation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b. Laryngoscope, 127:S1-S13, 2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.