ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2021
Factors Affecting Neonatal Hearing Screening Follow-up in Developing Countries: One Insitution Prospective Pilot Study.
Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Role of Newborn Hearing Screening Done Over One Year in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in Karachi, Pakistan using a universally applicable cost-effectiveness model.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Newborn and infant hearing screening for early detection of hearing loss in Nairobi, Kenya.African health sciences · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of portable-automated ABR for universal neonatal hearing screening in India.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo detect factors related with loss to follow-up (LTF) in neonatal hearing screening (NHS) program of one institution in a developing country.
methodsA prospective study was planned based on the data collected in a pilot study conducted a year before in the same institution. In this pilot study, hearing screening was performed before hospital discharge for every infant (1217 newborns) in six months period. Total referral rate was 19.1% (223/1217). Loss to follow-up (LTF) was 38.1% (85/223). Telephonic interviews were done with 50 parents who had not come with their child to the second hearing test. For these telephonic interviews the questionnaire with four sections (socio-demographic information; information about pregnancy, birth, and present health condition of the child; caregiver knowledge of neonatal hearing screening, and reasons for default on follow-up) was created.
resultsThe mothers participated in this study were 29.1 years (±5.2 SD) of age in average. Place of residence was mostly rural (64%; n=32) with 39.4 Km (±24.8 SD) away from from the rescreen referral center. Their knowledge on neonatal hearing screening, hearing impairment incidence or treatment opportunities was at a very low level. Caregivers' perceptions that follow-up was unnecessary (50%; n=25), was most frequently given reason for follow-up default, followed by newborns bad health condition (12%; n=6) and forgetting about the follow-up visits (8%; n=6).
conclusionThe main reason for default in follow-up in our study was caregiver's poor knowledge about this topic.
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.