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

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.34881717
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
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

Teresa Y. C. Ching, Kayla Elliott, Bonny Parkinson, Valerie Sung et al.
1 links
Figshare
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
article

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

Teresa Y. C. Ching, Kayla Elliott, Bonny Parkinson, Valerie Sung, Patricia Van Buynder, Yuchen Wang, Evelyn M. Deutscher, Libby J. Smith, Greg Leigh, Karen Liddle, Whitney Zi-Yang Qian, Lauren McHugh, Vanessa Bond, Kristen Mason, Jing Wang
article en

Abstract

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.

Figshare
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
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