Objectives: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) varies regarding number and type of tests, location, age, professionals and funding. We compared the provision of existing screening programmes.
Design: A questionnaire containing nine domains: demography, administration, existing screening, coverage, tests, diagnosis, treatment, cost and adverse effects, was presented to hearing screening experts. Responses were verified. Clusters were identified based on number of screening steps and use of OAE or aABR, either for all infants or for well and high-risk infants (dual-protocol).
Study sample: Fifty-two experts completed the questionnaire sufficiently: 40 European countries, Russia, Malawi, Rwanda, India and China.
Results: It took considerable effort to find experts for all countries with sufficient time and knowledge. Data essential for evaluation are often not collected. Infants are first screened in maternity wards in most countries. Human development index and health expenditure were high among countries with dual protocols, three screening steps, including aABR, and low among countries without NHS and countries using OAE for all infants. Nationwide implementation of NHS took 6 years, on average.
Conclusion: The extent and complexity of NHS programmes are primarily related to health expenditure and HDI. Data collection should be improved to facilitate comparison of NHS programmes across borders.
Keywords: Newborn hearing screening; childhood hearing impairment; early intervention; screening protocol.