The influence of potentially limiting factors on paediatric outcomes following cochlear implantation

Measuring health-related quality of life after pediatric cochlear implantation: A systematic review

“…Ad hoc HRQL instruments that are designed for the purposes of an individual study can be qualitative or quantitative and were used in four reports [21,[24][25][26]. Ad hoc qualitative measures provide rich detailed information and are useful to understand the broad impact of a treatment on HRQL.…”

“…In contrast, ad hoc quantitative instruments allow for simple numerical summary scores but are difficult to interpret since the instruments have not been validated and normative scores are not available. Two studies [21,24] used qualitative, open-ended questionnaires, and two studies developed and used a quantitative instrument [25,26].…”

“…We used variations of the following search string for all databases: ''(Cochlear implant * ) AND (quality of life OR effectiveness OR cost utility OR cost effectiveness OR psychology OR health status OR program evaluation OR parent * ) AND (pediatric OR child * OR infant OR toddler)''. We also hand-searched personal literature files and the reference lists of all articles found to be eligible for our systematic review [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Developmental delay and outcomes in paediatric cochlear implantation: Implications for candidacy

“…However, the improvements in behaviour and interactions with others suggested a positive impact on quality of life, and the majority of the families (five out of six) said they would recommend a cochlear implant to other families in similar circumstances. In a similarly small sample of children with additional disabilities (n = 4), successful outcomes have been reported in terms of subjective indicators of life changes where speech and language progress was limited [13]. Holt and Kirk [14] report on the progress of a group of 19 children with mild cognitive delays, concluding that these children do benefit from cochlear implantation in terms of speech perception and receptive and expressive language, although their progress is not as marked as their peers without the additional impairment.…”

Cochlear Implants in Children: A Review

“…Similarly, a further study of children with a variety of disabilities, such as attention-deficit disorder, cerebral palsy, central auditory processing disorder, dyspraxia and autism, showed some speech perception skill development at a slower rate than for the general population (Waltzman et al, 2000). Children whose additional disability is mild can derive significant benefit from cochlear implants, whereas children with more severe disabilities have much less favourable outcomes, with some showing almost no progress (Edwards, Frost & Witham, 2006;Filipo et al, 2004;Hamzavi et al, 2000;Meinzen-Derr et al, 2011;Vlahovic & Sindija, 2004). Most studies have highlighted that children with additional disabilities require longer periods of implant use before demonstrating any benefit, and as for children in the general cochlear implant population, variation in outcomes is wide for children with additional disabilities (Hamzavi et al, 2000;Waltzman et al, 2000).…”