Semin Hear 2009; 30(3): 165-183
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1225402
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Survey of Pediatricians and Early Hearing Detection and Identification Programs at a Precise Local Level: An Academic Medical Center

Jeffrey L. Danhauer1 , Kate B. David2 , Carole E. Johnson3 , Dianne H. Meyer2
  • 1Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
  • 2Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • 3Department of Communication Disorders, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 September 2009 (online)

ABSTRACT

Pediatricians (Peds) are vital to early hearing detection and intervention programs (EHDIPs). Peds should educate families about programs and encourage them to comply with professionals' recommendations. Surveying Peds at local levels is important for ensuring that they meet benchmarks. This study used a revised questionnaire to assess Peds at Rush University Medical Center (RUMC) about EHDIPs. Of all 115 Peds at RUMC, 21 responded = 18.6% response rate; 57% (12) were residents and 42.9% (9) were attending physicians. Most had knowledge about, experience with, and positive attitudes toward EHDIPs, but could use additional information. Results expanded on earlier surveys by using an updated questionnaire relevant to latest EHDIPs goals and Peds at a precise hospital and provided information for audiologists conducting physician outreach programs to help Peds prevent children from being lost to follow up.

REFERENCES

  • 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008 .Early hearing detection and intervention program. Summary of 2006 national EHDI data (version 3). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/documents/EHDI.Summ2006.Web.pdf Accessed August 20, 2008
  • 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007 .National early hearing detection and intervention goals. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/NCBDDD/ehdi/nationalgoals.htm Accessed August 20, 2008
  • 3 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing; American Academy of Audiology; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies . Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs.  Pediatrics. 2000;  106 798-817
  • 4 American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing . Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs.  Pediatrics. 2007;  20 898-921
  • 5 Danhauer J L, Johnson C E, Finnegan D et al.. A case study of an emerging community-based early hearing detection and intervention program: part II. Team building with otolaryngologists and pediatricians using a survey method.  Am J Audiol. 2006;  15 33-45
  • 6 Danhauer J L, Pecile A F, Johnson C E, Mixon M L, Sharp S. Parents' compliance with and impressions of a maturing community-based early hearing detection and intervention program: an update.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;  19(8) 612-629
  • 7 Ruben R J. A time frame of critical/sensitive periods of language development.  Acta Otolaryngol. 1997;  117 202-205
  • 8 Yoshinago-Itano C, Sedey A L, Coulter D K, Mehl A L. Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss.  Pediatrics. 1998;  102 1161-1171
  • 9 Danhauer J L, Johnson C E, Finnegan D et al.. A national survey of pediatric otolaryngologists and early hearing detection and intervention programs.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;  17 708-721
  • 10 Moeller M P, White K R, Shisler L. Primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to newborn hearing screening.  Pediatrics. 2006;  118 1357-1370
  • 11 Wall T C, Senicz E, Evans H H, Woolley A, Hardin J M. Hearing screening practices among a national sample of primary care pediatricians.  Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006;  45 559-566
  • 12 Arnold C L, Davis T C, Humiston S G et al.. Infant hearing screening: stakeholder recommendations for parent-centered communication.  Pediatrics. 2006;  117 341-354
  • 13 Brown N C, James K, Liu J, Hatcher P A, Li Y. Newborn hearing screening. An assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and practice among Minnesota physicians.  Minn Med. 2006;  89(12) 50-54
  • 14 Carron J D, Moore R B, Dhaliwal A S. Perceptions of pediatric primary care physicians on congenital hearing loss and cochlear implantation.  J Miss State Med Assoc. 2006;  47 35-41
  • 15 Dorros C, Kurtzer-White E, Ahlgren M, Simon P, Vohr B. Medical home for children with hearing loss: physician perspectives and practices.  Pediatrics. 2007;  120 288-294
  • 16 Wall T C, Peralta-Carcelen M, Fargason Jr C A, Evans H H, Snyder E D, Wolley A L. Support of universal newborn hearing screening among mothers and health care providers.  Ambul Child Health. 2001;  7 283-295
  • 17 Medical News Today .Study places Rush University Medical Center among the top performing academic medical centers in the USA. 2008. Available at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122339.php Accessed September 21, 2008
  • 18 Mangunkusumo R T, Moorman P W, Van Den Berg-de Ruiter A E, Van Der Lei J, De Koning H J, Raat H. Internet-administered adolescent health questionnaires compared with a paper version in a randomized study.  J Adolesc Health. 2005;  36(1) 70.el-e6
  • 19 Raat H, Mangunkusumo R T, Mohangoo A D, Juniper E F, Van Der Lei J. Internet and written respiratory questionnaires yield equivalent results for adolescents.  Pediatr Pulmonol. 2007;  42 357-361
  • 20 Danhauer J L, Johnson C E, Byrd A et al.. Survey of college students on iPod use and hearing health.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 5-27
  • 21 Hayslett M M, Wildemuth B M. Pixels or pencils? The relative effectiveness of Web-based versus paper surveys.  Libr Inf Sci Res. 2004;  26(1) 73-93
  • 22 Raziano D B, Jayadevappa R, Valenzula D, Weiner M, Lavizzo-Mourey R. E-mail versus conventional postal mail survey of geriatric chiefs.  Gerontologist. 2001;  41 799-804
  • 23 Cartwright A. Professionals as responders: variations in and effects of response rates to questionnaires, 1961–1977.  BMJ. 1978;  2 1419-1421
  • 24 McDonald P. Response rates in general practice studies.  Br J Gen Pract. 1993;  43 484
  • 25 Sibbald B, Addington-Hall J, Brenneman D, Freeling P. Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations.  Br J Gen Pract. 1994;  44 297-300
  • 26 Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter?.  Br J Gen Pract. 1997;  47 91-94
  • 27 Kaner E F, Haighton C A, McAvoy B R. ‘So much post, so busy with practice—so, no time!’: a telephone survey of general practitioners' reasons for not participating in postal questionnaire surveys.  Br J Gen Pract. 1998;  48 1067-1069
  • 28 Pirotta M, Gunn J, Farish S, Karabatsos G. Primer postcard improves postal survey response rates.  Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;  23 196-197
  • 29 Hocking J S, Lim M S, Read T, Hellard M. Postal surveys of physicians gave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;  59 521-524
  • 30 Johnson C E, Danhauer J L, Koch L L, Celani K E, Lopez I P, Williams V A. Hearing and balance screening and referrals for Medicare patients: a national survey of primary care physicians.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;  19 171-190
  • 31 Danhauer J L, Celani K E, Johnson C E. Use of a hearing and balance screening survey with local primary care physicians.  Am J Audiol. 2008;  17 3-13
  • 32 Asch D A, Jedrziewski M K, Christakis N A. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;  50 1129-1136
  • 33 Cummings S M, Savitz L A, Konrad T R. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires.  Health Serv Res. 2001;  35 1347-1355
  • 34 Dellavalle R P, Heilig L F, Francis S O et al.. What dermatologists do not know about smallpox vaccination: results from a worldwide electronic survey.  J Invest Dermatol. 2006;  126(5) 986-989
  • 35 Johnson C E, Danhauer J L, Granali B A, Ross M, Cresawn B S. Systematic review of physicians' knowledge of, participation in, and attitudes toward newborn hearing screening programs.  Semin Hear. 2009;  30 139-148
  • 36 Johnson E E. Survey explores how dispensers use and choose their preferred hearing aid brands.  Hear J. 2007;  60(3) 23-36
  • 37 Magnuson M, Hergils L. The parents' view on hearing screening in newborns. Feelings, thoughts and opinions on otoacoustic emissions screening.  Scand Audiol. 1999;  28 47-56
  • 38 Young A, Andrews E. Parents' experience of universal neonatal hearing screening: a critical review of the literature and its implications for the implementation of new UNHS programs.  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2001;  6 149-160
  • 39 Finitzo T, Crumley W G. The role of the pediatrician in hearing loss. From detection to connection.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 1999;  46 15-34 ix-x
  • 40 Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C et al.. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998–1999.  Pediatrics. 1999;  103 527-530
  • 41 Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies (DSHPSHWA) .Preliminary summary of 2005 national EHDI data. Version 6 (October 2007). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/documents/NatSumm2005WebV6.pdf Accessed August 20, 2008

Carole E JohnsonPh.D. Au.D. 

Department of Communication Disorders, 1199 Haley Center

Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849

Email: johns19@auburn.edu

    >