Audiologists’ knowledge of cochlear implants and their related referrals to the cochlear implant centre: Pilot study findings from UK

Chundu, Srikanth; Buhagiar, Roberta

doi:10.1179/1754762812y.0000000025

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In die Hörgeräte-und CI-Versorgung sind derzeit unterschiedliche Berufsgruppen involviert. Daher ist davon auszugehen,dassdieMehrzahlderindieHörgeräteversorgunginvolvierten Berufsgruppen nicht über aktuelles CI-Expertenwissen verfügt und so durchaus den notwendigen Wechsel vom Hörgerät zum CI verzögert [16]. Hörgeräteträger mit unzureichendem Sprachverstehen gehören zum vertrauten Patientengut einer HNO-Praxis.HäufigmussdannohneumfangreichetechnischeMöglichkeiten zur Hörgeräteüberprüfung entschieden werden, ob der jeweilige Patient die Nutzung evtl.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten

Hoppe

Hocke²,

Hast

et al. 2017

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study gives an estimation of the long term outcome of a screening procedure for cochlear implant candidacy in hearing aid users.In a recent retrospective study, hearing aid performance and audiometric measures in 185 subjects (318 ears) were analyzed. In the context of 2 years follow-up, the outcome of the ipsilateral screening procedure was analyzed. For patients who did receive a cochlear implant, their audiometric outcome measures were viewed into relation to their preoperative results.From the 96 ears identified as cochlear implant candidates, 34 were provided with a cochlear implant. 222 ears were identified as hearing aid users. Only 4 of these 222 ears were provided with a cochlear implant. Cochlear implant recipients with a preoperative speech recognition score with hearing aids above zero showed a mean improvement of 65% points in Freiburg monosyllabics.The audiometry-based screening procedure enables an effective management of the referral process of cochlear implant candidates.

show abstract

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten

Hoppe

Hocke²,

Hast

et al. 2017

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the importance of information translation to increase the awareness of new knowledge and achieve change in audiences' actions or behaviours, pretrial qualitative research rarely seeks stakeholders' perspectives on dissemination strategies for RCT results. Adequate information in dissemination is of particular importance in audiology where hearing device knowledge amongst HCPs and patients is insufficient or compromised [13,17,18,37,38] and the uptake of both HAs and CIs is low [8][9][10]. Cohen et al [17], for example, found poor awareness of, and little knowledge about, CI eligibility criteria amongst primary care providers in the United States and recommended increased training and outreach by CI specialists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical equipoise is reinforced by personal preference and personal decision-making. HCPs may, for example, lack awareness of the benefits of CIs for patients with significant hearing loss which affects their assessment and referral for implantation, and limits informative discussions with patients [11,[17][18][19]. Decision-making processes can also be influenced by the commercial interests of hearing clinics where sales commissions and targets motivate some audiologists in their prescribing habits [20,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

Francis-Auton

Warren

Braithwaite

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while still considered the gold standard approach in medical research, can encounter impediments to their successful conduct and the dissemination of results. Pretrial qualitative research can usefully address some of these impediments, including recruitment and retention, ethical conduct, and preferred methods of dissemination. However, pretrial qualitative work is rarely undertaken in audiology. The Comparison of outcomes with hearing aids and cochlear implants in adults with moderately severeto-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (COACH) is a proposed RCT aiming to clarify when hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs) are the most suitable for different degrees of hearing loss and for which kinds of patients. q-COACH is a pretrial, qualitative study examining stakeholders' experiences of HAs and CIs, current clinical practices and stakeholders' perspectives of the design, conduct and dissemination plans for the proposed COACH study. Methods: Twenty-four participants including general practitioners, audiologists, adult HA users, and adult support networks undertook either semi-structured individual or paired interviews and completed demographic questionnaires. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Four key themes arose from this study: 1) rethinking sampling and recruitment strategies, 2) ethical considerations, 3) refining trial conduct, and 4) interconnected, appropriate and accessible methods of results dissemination. Conclusions: This qualitative investigation identified key considerations for the proposed RCT design, conduct and dissemination to help with successful implementation of COACH, and to indicate a plan of action at all RCT stages that would be acceptable to potential participants. By drawing on the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders and including a more general discussion of their experience and opinions of hearing loss, hearing device use and service availability, the study revealed experiential and ethical paradigms in which stakeholders operate. In so doing, q-COACH has exposed the benefits of preliminary qualitative investigations that enable detailed and rich understandings of the phenomenon at stake, forestalling problems and improving the quality of trial design, conduct and dissemination, while informing future RCT development discussions.

show abstract

“…It would be reasonable to assume that professionals such as audiologists and otorhinolaryngologists were well informed about the benefits and limitations of a CI and were able to refer appropriately. However, very little published data exists and the most recent of these studies, Chundu and Buhagiar, indicate that less than half of the audiologists surveyed were confident that they knew when to refer a patient for a CI assessment [46]. Behaviour patterns are explained and modified by using different theories of learning use models.…”

Section: Raising Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This cost refers to, but is not restricted to, financial outlays. Applying this into the area of disabling hearing loss, we must consider that people will take action to seek treatment for disabling hearing loss if they view this disabling hearing loss as a serious issue, they feel sufficiently concerned about the severity of their disabling hearing loss, and that there are more benefits than barriers to amplification or an alternative way of stimulation/amplification [46].…”

Section: Raising Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need to Increase Awareness and Access to Cochlear Implantation

D’Haese¹,

Rompaey²,

Bodt³

et al. 2020

Advances in Rehabilitation of Hearing Loss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some degree of disabling hearing loss is present in 466 million people worldwide, representing 5% of the world's population and the majority of these are adults over 65 years old. Hearing loss is associated with increased risks of social isolation, depression, dementia, stroke, vision loss, diabetes and mortality. It is in the top five causes of years lived with disability in 2015, 2016 and 2017 for males and top 10 for females. Hearing aids are a suitable treatment for mild to moderate loses but for some they do not provide enough benefit. Cochlear implantation is a proven and effective treatment for bilateral severe to profound hearing loss, yet despite good funding in high income countries, the utilisation of CI is poor (less than 10% of suitable patients), especially in the older adult population who arguably need it most. Prevalence data shows that hearing loss increases with age, but the provision of implants in the over 65 s is even lower, despite there being no clinical barriers to older adults receiving a CI. Survey data shows that awareness activities are needed for both professionals and the general population to improve knowledge of what a CI is and how it can help.

show abstract

Audiologists’ knowledge of cochlear implants and their related referrals to the cochlear implant centre: Pilot study findings from UK

Abstract: The results show a trend that clinical scientists (audiology)/audiologists support cochlear implantation, but due to a lack of training and familiarity, not all are confident in discussing CIs with patients and making an appropriate referral.

Cited by 25 publications

References 11 publications

Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten

Langzeitergebnisse eines Screeningverfahrens für erwachsene Cochlea-Implantat-Kandidaten

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

The Need to Increase Awareness and Access to Cochlear Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About