| Title |
Variability of State School-Based Hearing Screening Protocols in The United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Health, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10900-013-9652-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deepa L. Sekhar, Thomas R. Zalewski, Ian M. Paul |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of hearing loss has increased among United States children. As schools commonly perform hearing screens, we sought to contrast current United States school-based hearing screening protocols. State department of health and education websites were reviewed to assess school hearing screening protocols for the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Individuals listed on these websites were contacted as necessary to confirm and/or acquire relevant data. School-based hearing screening is currently required in 34/51 (67 %) states. Of these 34 states, 28 (82 %) mandate grades for screening, but only 20 (59 %) require screening beyond 6th grade. Pure tone audiometry is the most common screening method (33/34 [97 %]). A majority of states screen at 1, 2 and 4 kHz usually at 20 or 25 dB hearing level. Six states recommend or require testing at 6 or 8 kHz, which is necessary to detect high-frequency hearing loss. The results indicate that United States school-based hearing screens vary significantly. They focus on low frequencies with few testing adolescents for whom high-frequency hearing loss has increased. Disparities in hearing loss detection are likely, particularly considering the evolution of hazardous noise exposures and rising prevalence of hearing loss. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,358,722
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#146
of 1,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,677
of 281,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.