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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Audiology
Published
2026-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2749168
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.07

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Kayla Elliott, Bonny Parkinson, Valerie Sung, Patricia Van Buynder et al.
1 citations
International Journal of Audiology
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
4.07
article

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

Kayla Elliott, Bonny Parkinson, Valerie Sung, Patricia Van Buynder, Yuchen Wang, Jing Wang, Evelyn M. Deutscher, Karen Liddle, Whitney Zi-Yang Qian, Lauren McHugh, Linda E. Smith, Vanessa Bond, The ANCHOR Collaborative, Greg Leigh, Kristen Mason, Teresa YC Ching
article en
1 citations

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.

International Journal of Audiology
Royal Children's Hospital (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), NextSense (AU), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, State Government of Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
4.07
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon