ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2024
Provider Perspectives: Identification and Follow-up of Infants who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWithout timely screening, diagnosis, and intervention, hearing loss can cause significant delays in a child's speech, language, social, and emotional development. In 2019, Texas had nearly twice the average rate of loss to follow-up (LFU) or loss to documentation (LTD; i.e., missing documentation of services received) among infants who did not pass their newborn hearing screening compared to the United States overall (51.1 vs. 27.5%). We aimed to identify factors contributing to LFU/LTD among infants who do not pass their newborn hearing screening in Texas. STUDY
designData were collected through semistructured qualitative interviews with 56 providers along the hearing care continuum, including hospital newborn hearing screening program staff, audiologists, primary care physicians, and early intervention (EI) program staff located in three rural and urban public health regions in Texas. Following recording and transcription of the interviews, we used qualitative data analysis software to analyze themes using a conventional content analysis approach.
resultsFrequently cited barriers included problems with family access to care, difficulty contacting patients, problems with communication between providers and referrals, lack of knowledge among providers and parents, and problems using the online reporting system. Providers in rural areas more often mentioned problems with family access to care and contacting families compared to providers in urban areas.
conclusionThese findings provide insight into strategies that public health professionals and health care providers can use to work together to help further increase the number of children identified early who may benefit from EI services. KEY POINTS: · Infants with suspected hearing loss may not receive timely diagnosis or early intervention.. · We interviewed healthcare providers in Texas along the hearing care continuum.. · Findings suggest strategies to increase the number of children with hearing loss identified early..
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.