ArticleCoDAS2025
Knowledge, perception, and satisfaction of postpartum women about newborn hearing screening in two private Brazilian maternity hospitals.
Article in CoDAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Limitations in Neonatal Hearing and Vision Screening in Latin America: A Scoping Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Review
- Satisfaction and anxiety levels of parents of infants with positive screening test results performed as part of the national newborn hearing screening program.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the knowledge, perception, and satisfaction of postpartum women about newborn hearing screening and investigate factors associated with lack of knowledge about the test.
methodsCross-sectional analytical study conducted in two private Brazilian maternity hospitals. Participants were postpartum women with newborn infants eligible for hearing screening. After the hearing test, they answered an anonymous written questionnaire to assess their knowledge about, perception of, and satisfaction with the test. The characteristics of participants with and without knowledge about the test were compared using the Chi-square test. Variables with P <0.20 were included in the logistic regression.
resultsThe study included 470 postpartum women (74.1% had a university degree). Nearly 42% (n=195) had no prior knowledge about the test. Among those with prior knowledge, the main sources of information were having a previous child who had undergone the test (50.5%), and family/friends (26.2%). Primiparity (aOR 5.01, 95% CI 3.27-7.69), lack of information about the test during antenatal care (aOR 3.67, 95% CI 2.01-6.70), and no family member with hearing loss (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.16-3.47) were variables associated with the lack of knowledge about the test. Almost all participants (98.7%) perceived the test as very important, and 94.3% were totally satisfied with it.
conclusionEven though newborn hearing screening became mandatory in Brazil over a decade ago, a large proportion of postpartum women in two private hospitals had no prior knowledge about the test. However, the vast majority perceive the test as very important and are highly satisfied with it.
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.