Cargando…

Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes

BACKGROUND: Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) established quality of care process indicators an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mincarone, Pierpaolo, Leo, Carlo Giacomo, Sabina, Saverio, Costantini, Daniele, Cozzolino, Francesco, Wong, John B., Latini, Giuseppe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26198353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x
_version_ 1782382297534693376
author Mincarone, Pierpaolo
Leo, Carlo Giacomo
Sabina, Saverio
Costantini, Daniele
Cozzolino, Francesco
Wong, John B.
Latini, Giuseppe
author_facet Mincarone, Pierpaolo
Leo, Carlo Giacomo
Sabina, Saverio
Costantini, Daniele
Cozzolino, Francesco
Wong, John B.
Latini, Giuseppe
author_sort Mincarone, Pierpaolo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) established quality of care process indicators and benchmarks for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS). We have aggregated some of these indicators/benchmarks according to the three pillars of universality, timely detection and overreferral. When dealing with inter-comparison, relying on complete and standardised literature data becomes crucial. The purpose of this paper is to verify whether literature data on UNHS programmes have included sufficient information to allow inter-programme comparisons according to the indicators considered. METHODS: We performed a systematic search identifying UNHS studies and assessing the quality of programmes. RESULTS: The identified 12 studies demonstrated heterogeneity in criteria for referring to further examinations during the screening phase and in identifying high-risk neonates, protocols, tests, staff, and testing environments. Our systematic review also highlighted substantial variability in reported performance data. In order to optimise the reporting of screening protocols and process performance, we propose a checklist. Another result is the difficulty in guaranteeing full respect for the criteria of universality, timely detection and overreferral. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation in reporting UNHS experiences may also have a positive impact on inter-program comparisons, hence favouring the emergence of recognised best practices. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4511235
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45112352015-07-23 Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes Mincarone, Pierpaolo Leo, Carlo Giacomo Sabina, Saverio Costantini, Daniele Cozzolino, Francesco Wong, John B. Latini, Giuseppe BMC Pediatr Research Article BACKGROUND: Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) established quality of care process indicators and benchmarks for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS). We have aggregated some of these indicators/benchmarks according to the three pillars of universality, timely detection and overreferral. When dealing with inter-comparison, relying on complete and standardised literature data becomes crucial. The purpose of this paper is to verify whether literature data on UNHS programmes have included sufficient information to allow inter-programme comparisons according to the indicators considered. METHODS: We performed a systematic search identifying UNHS studies and assessing the quality of programmes. RESULTS: The identified 12 studies demonstrated heterogeneity in criteria for referring to further examinations during the screening phase and in identifying high-risk neonates, protocols, tests, staff, and testing environments. Our systematic review also highlighted substantial variability in reported performance data. In order to optimise the reporting of screening protocols and process performance, we propose a checklist. Another result is the difficulty in guaranteeing full respect for the criteria of universality, timely detection and overreferral. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation in reporting UNHS experiences may also have a positive impact on inter-program comparisons, hence favouring the emergence of recognised best practices. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4511235/ /pubmed/26198353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x Text en © Mincarone et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mincarone, Pierpaolo
Leo, Carlo Giacomo
Sabina, Saverio
Costantini, Daniele
Cozzolino, Francesco
Wong, John B.
Latini, Giuseppe
Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title_full Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title_fullStr Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title_short Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
title_sort evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on unhs: a systematic review of programmes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26198353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x
work_keys_str_mv AT mincaronepierpaolo evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT leocarlogiacomo evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT sabinasaverio evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT costantinidaniele evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT cozzolinofrancesco evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT wongjohnb evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes
AT latinigiuseppe evaluatingreportingandprocessqualityofpublicationsonunhsasystematicreviewofprogrammes