Article record

探索澳大利亚儿科听力健康服务中听力损失的分级分类

Exploring the categorisation of hearing loss across Australia's paediatric hearing health services.

临床研究耳科IF 2.3Q2

文献信息

PMID	42967821
原文	在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗
发表日期	2026
作者	Jing Wang 查看其他 14 位作者 Whitney Zi-Yang Qian；Libby Smith；Yuchen Wang；Vanessa Bond；Evelyn Deutscher；Kayla Elliott；Patricia Van Buynder；Karen Liddle；Kristen Mason；Lauren McHugh；Bonny Parkinson；Teresa Yc Ching；Greg Leigh；Valerie Sung
作者单位	Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 查看其他 9 条单位信息 Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.；Centre for Child Community Health, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.；Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia.；Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Healthy Hearing, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.；Hearing Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.；Deaf Connect, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.；Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.；NextSense Institute, NextSense, Sydney, NSW, Australia.；Macquarie School of Education, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
期刊	International journal of audiology
SCI 分区	Q2
IF	2.3
研究类型	临床研究 · 临床
所属专科	耳科

中文摘要

目的： 描述澳大利亚各听力健康服务机构对儿童听力损失的分级分类方式，并评估现有分类系统能否统一为单一国家框架，以支持一致、公平的数据收集与报告。
设计： 一项横断面全国调查收集了提供普遍新生儿听力筛查、诊断性听力学、听力康复和听力植入服务的机构的回复。比较了不同辖区、分类系统和服务类型之间的类别及相关听力水平阈值。
研究样本： 澳大利亚99家为儿童（0-18岁）提供290项听力健康服务的机构完成了调查。其中，43家机构报告了听力类别，40家提供了阈值范围。
结果： 大多数机构使用六类别系统。常见类别包括正常、轻度、中度、重度和极重度。正常（≤20dB HL）、轻度（21-40dB HL）、重度（71-90dB HL）和极重度（≥91dB HL）的分贝听力级（dB HL）阈值一致。相比之下，中度、中重度和重度至极重度的阈值存在差异，各服务机构之间的范围有重叠。
结论： 尽管许多机构使用的阈值范围与公认标准大致一致，但中间类别存在差异，表明需要统一的国家共识，以支持一致的解释、服务规划和报告，最终改善照护和结局。

英文摘要

OBJECTIVE: To describe how childhood hearing loss is categorised across Australian hearing health services and assess whether existing categorisation systems can be harmonised into a single national framework to support consistent, equitable data collection and reporting.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional national survey collected responses from organisations providing universal newborn hearing screening, diagnostic audiology, hearing rehabilitation, and hearing implantation services. Categories and associated hearing-level thresholds were compared across jurisdictions, category systems and service types.
STUDY SAMPLE: Ninety-nine organisations providing 290 hearing health services to children (aged zero-18 years) in Australia completed the survey. Among these, 43 organisations reported hearing categories and 40 provided threshold ranges.
RESULTS: Most organisations used a six-category system. Common categories included Normal, Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Profound. Decibel Hearing Level (dB HL) thresholds were consistent for Normal (≤20dB HL), Mild (21-40dB HL), Severe (71-90dB HL), and Profound (≥91dB HL). In contrast, thresholds for Moderate, Moderately Severe, and Severe-to-Profound varied, with overlapping ranges across services.
CONCLUSIONS: While many organisations used threshold ranges broadly aligned with recognised standards, variation in mid-range categories indicates the need for a unified national consensus to support consistent interpretation, service planning, and reporting, ultimately improving care and outcomes.