Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: