PMC8712396

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Only 6 of 18 (33%) patients who failed the hearing screen underwent the recommended formal audiologic evaluation, consistent with follow-up compliance rates reported in primary care and school screeni

Effect: decline; 33% (6/18)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)

Of 6 screen failures who underwent formal audiologic evaluation, 3 (50%) demonstrated confirmed hearing loss: 2 conductive and 1 sensorineural, all in the 4000-8000 Hz range.

Effect: decline; 3/6 (50%)