Non-users and limited users of cochlear implants

Abstract

This study evaluates the incidence of non‐use and limited use of cochlear implants and attempts to identify predictors of such outcome. This involved a retrospective analysis of questionnaires, clinical and audiological data of 423 cochlear implant recipients from the Midland Adult Cochlear Implant Programme and Birmingham Paediatric Cochlear Implant Programme between 1990 and 2000. Of the 172 children in the paediatric programme 5 (2.9%) were non/limited users and of the 251 adults in the adult programme 7 (2.78%) were non/limited users. Thus in total 12 (2.82%) recipients were deemed to be either limited users (0.94%) or non‐users (1.89%) of their implants. The mean duration of deafness prior to implantation was around 10 years in both the paediatric and adult groups. In the paediatric group, peer pressure played a prominent role in the non‐use of implant. Depression, tinnitus, concomitant neurological problems and non‐auditory stimulation seemed to be the predominant reasons in the older age group. The reasons for limited use were cognitive slowing and problems with background noise. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Factors Affecting Daily Cochlear Implant Use in Children: Datalogging Evidence

“…The proportion of limited CI users in the present study was 2.05% (3 of 146 children). This is similar to the limited use rates reported in the literature (2.90% in 172 children, Ray et al, 2006;1.93% in 413 children, Ö zdemir et al, 2013;2% of 138 children, Archbold et al, 2009). Two of the three children (one bimodal, one unilateral) were ,3 yr old and one child (sequential; second implanted ear) was 16.5 yr old.…”

“…Figure 2A displays the distribution of average CI use per day in the study cohort. Only three children (2.05%) could be categorized as limited users based on the ,2 hr of CI use per day criterion suggested by Ray et al (2006).…”

Models of service delivery for ear and hearing care in remote or resource-constrained environments

“…40,41,43 Success may also be less than in high-income settings: in 2015, Brazil implanted 1200 children per annum, but reported 11 per cent non-use, 40 compared to 2-3 per cent non-use in the UK. 44,45 Challenges in resource-constrained environments There can be challenges particular to low-to middle-income countries. There are the problems of infrastructure that have been alluded to above, including inconsistency of electrical or water supplies, and difficulties in acquiring specialised medical equipment.…”

“…A cochlear implant programme may nevertheless prove cost-effective, 42 but in many circumstances, deaf education programmes may be even more so 40 , 41 , 43 . Success may also be less than in high-income settings: in 2015, Brazil implanted 1200 children per annum, but reported 11 per cent non-use, 40 compared to 2–3 per cent non-use in the UK 44 , 45 …”

Adapting to bilateral cochlear implants: early post-operative device use by children receiving sequential or simultaneous implants at or before 3.5 years

“…There is limited information in the published literature regarding aspects of adaptation such as the time typically taken to achieve full-time device use and the ease with which this occurs, or the proportion of children who initially resist wearing their unilateral implant. Published articles reporting information on device use primarily focus on those children who are limited or non-users of their implant in the longer term Ray et al, 2006;Watson and Gregory, 2005). Watson and Gregory (2005) conducted parent and/or child interviews 5-7 years post-implantation, but did collect some information related to the early experiences of the five children involved, who were all non-users of their implant.…”