ArticleJMA journal2025
Impact of the Improved Publicly-funded Newborn Hearing Screening Program.
Article in JMA journal, 2025. 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.
- The Japanese Version of the Functional Listening Index-Paediatric (FLI-P(J)): Translation, Normative Data, and Clinical Feasibility.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To increase the coverage rate and effectiveness, universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) should be financed by public funding rather than individuals. This study investigated the impact of the publicly-funded NHS program on the detection rate and the time to diagnosis and initiation of intervention for children with congenital hearing loss. Methods: We compared two groups: one group included newborns born between April 2011 and March 2016 who either did not pass NHS or were referred due to high risk (Group 1); the other group included newborns born between April 2017 and March 2022 who met the same criteria (Group 2). The screening costs of Group 1 were covered by the guardians' payments, whereas those of Group 2 were covered by public funding. The NHS program in Group 2 exhibited improved screening methods, course, and timing of diagnostic hearing tests for referred newborns. The number of detected newborns with hearing impairment, the period between birth and the initial visit to a diagnostic institution, and the time to intervention were evaluated. Results: Group 2 had more newborns with hearing loss (n = 51) than Group 1 (n = 32), representing a significant difference (p = 0.005). Group 2 had more children with bilateral hearing loss (n = 29) than Group 1 (n = 21), but the difference was not significant. The duration until the diagnostic test was significantly reduced in Group 2 (58 days in Group 1 vs. 35 days in Group 2). The duration of intervention also was significantly reduced in Group 2 (147 days vs. 99 days). Conclusions: The improved program based on public funding achieved an increased number of detected infants with hearing loss. Additionally, it shortened the durations until the first diagnostic test to an institution and intervention. The new NHS program funded by local governments achieved improved effectiveness by unifying the screening method, the course of diagnostic hearing examination, and the follow-up.
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.