Crockett, R., Baker, H., Uus, K., Bamford, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2005). Maternal anxiety and satisfaction following infant hearing screening: A comparison of the health visitor distraction test and newborn hearing screening. Journal of Medical Screening, 12(2), 78-81.
Background: Newborn hearing screening is currently replacing the health visitor distraction test (HVDT) conducted at eight months. Previous research indicates that recall for further tests following newborn hearing screening can have a negative impact on the emotional well being of mothers, but it is not known if this is greater than that caused by recall following the distraction test.
Objective: To compare the impact on maternal anxiety and satisfaction of recall following newborn hearing screening and the HVDT.
Methods: Four groups participated: 27 mothers of babies receiving a satisfactory result and 21 mothers of babies recalled after the HVDT, 26 mothers of babies receiving a satisfactory result and 16 mothers of babies recalled after newborn hearing screening. Questionnaires assessing maternal anxiety, worry, and certainty about the babies’ hearing, satisfaction with and attitudes towards the screening test were sent to mothers three weeks and six months following screening.
Results: Comparison of the effects of receipt of different results showed no significant differences in maternal anxiety, worry, and certainty between the two tests. Those mothers whose babies had a newborn hearing screening test were significantly more satisfied, regardless of the result received. Those who received a satisfactory result on the newborn hearing screening program also had more positive attitudes towards that screening test than those receiving a satisfactory result following the HVDT.
Conclusion: These results suggest that newborn hearing screening does not have a more negative emotional impact than the HVDT.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Crockett, R. et al. (2005). Maternal anxiety and satisfaction following infant hearing screening.
Are the conclusions of this article supported by its data?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I found this article to be interesting, It seemed that the conclusions were supported by the data, although it is important to consider the limitations pointed out by the authors. Which were small sample size, low response rate among referrals, screening at different ages.
I feel that this study was rather weak for reasons that the authors stated, including small sample size, and variance in response time affecting the mother's emotional state. I also did not fully understand the reasoning behind the study, and I'm not sure that they clearly validated its purpose. I finished the article thinking that while it's a good thing that screening in the newborn period does not cause more emotional distress; even if it did, that would not justify putting it off until the child is older. I'm sure that if mothers understand the extreme importance of early identification, they would feel that its importance outweighs any emotional distress it may cause them.
The two main limitations of this study that were pointed out by the authors (small sample size and low response rate, and the different ages at which children were screened) were factors that could have significant effects, especially the second, on the outcomes. This is an especially important factor because it is the attitudes of the mothers that are being measured. Because of this, I feel that the conclusions of this article are not supported by the data presented.
The conclusions of the article stated that "newborn hearing screening did not have a more negative emotional impact than the HVDT". I had a difficult time understanding the reasoning behind the study. It seemed to me that the difference in emotional levels of mothers came from being referred for more testing, which makes sense. I would have like to see the number of children that were referred that ended up having a hearing loss. It would be interesting to see the results of mother's satisfaction with the test after it was discovered that their child had a hearing loss and they were already 8 months old.
This study does not seem to be justified. In the writing, it was not very clear if they authors were intending to decipher which type of screening produces the least amount of maternal anxiety, or to what degree did hearing screenings contribute to maternal anxiety. It is not clear what benefit we gain from knowing the answer to the later question; which in review seems to be the intent of the author’s study. Either way, screenings must go on. It is no longer a question of if we should. As far as the conclusions are concerned, I do think that they were supported.
Post a Comment