PofoliaShared via Pofolia

International Journal of Audiology· 2026Q1

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

Jing Wang, Whitney Zi-Yang Qian, Linda E. Smith, Yuchen Wang et al.

Short summary

Most Australian paediatric hearing services use consistent categories for normal, mild, and profound hearing loss, but moderate to severe categories vary significantly, indicating a need for a unified national framework.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • 100 Australian organisations providing paediatric hearing health services were surveyed.
  • Most services use 'Normal', 'Mild', 'Moderate', 'Severe', and 'Profound' categories for hearing loss.
  • Thresholds for Normal (≤ 20 dB), Mild (21–40 dB), and Profound (≥ 91 dB) hearing loss are relatively consistent.
  • Thresholds for Moderate and Severe hearing loss categories show considerable variation and overlap across services.
  • A unified national framework is needed to ensure consistent interpretation and reporting of hearing loss severity.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Abstract Objective To describe how childhood hearing loss is classified across Australian hearing health services and assess whether existing classification systems can be harmonised into a single national framework to support consistent and equitable data collection and reporting. Design: A cross-sectional national survey collected responses from organisations providing hearing health services, specifically Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), diagnostic audiology, hearing rehabilitation, and hearing implantation. Reported categories and associated hearing-level thresholds were compared across jurisdictions and service types. Study Sample: One hundred organisations (296 services) providing hearing health services to children (aged 0–18 years) in Australia completed the survey. Among these, 69 organisations reported categories of hearing-loss severity and 66 provided range of hearing threshold value associated with categories. Results Most organisations used the categories Normal, Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Profound, while ‘Slight’ was uncommon. Thresholds were relatively consistent for Normal (≤ 20 dB), Mild (21–40), and Profound (≥ 91). In contrast, thresholds for Moderate, Moderately Severe, Severe, and Severe-to-Profound varied considerably, with overlapping ranges across services. Conclusions Findings suggest a strong foundation for national harmonisation, with many organisations using threshold ranges broadly aligned with established (national and international) severity classification systems. However, substantial variation in the mid-range categories highlights the need for a unified national framework to ensure consistent interpretation, service planning and reporting, and to ultimately drive improvements in care and outcomes.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Audiology, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Speech and Hearing

Speech and HearingHealth Professions