The parents’ perspective of the early diagnostic period of their child with hearing loss: information and support

Scarinci, Nerina; Erbasi, Ennur; Moore, Emily; Ching, Teresa Y. C.; Marnane, Vivienne

doi:10.1080/14992027.2017.1301683

Cited by 46 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recognition of the importance of understanding the process behind caregiver decision-making for children with hearing loss, there is a body of literature which has explored factors that influence caregiver decision-making in the period following the initial diagnosis of hearing loss (Chang, 2017; Crowe, Fordham, McLeod, & Ching, 2014; Crowe, McLeod, McKinnon, & Ching, 2014; Decker et al, 2012; Eleweke & Rodda, 2000; Li, Bain, & Steinberg, 2003; Li, Bain, & Steinberg, 2004; Scarinci, Erbasi, Moore, Ching, & Marnane, 2017). To understand the reasoning behind caregiver decisions to change a child’s method of communication, it is important to first understand the initial decision-making process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To understand the reasoning behind caregiver decisions to change a child’s method of communication, it is important to first understand the initial decision-making process. Some of the most frequently discussed influences when initially choosing a child’s method of communication for both hearing parents and parents who are Deaf have included the individual characteristics of the child (Crowe, Fordham, et al, 2014; Li et al, 2003; Li et al, 2004), the influence of professionals, including the information they provide (Eleweke & Rodda, 2000; Scarinci et al, 2017), and their attitudes toward hearing loss and interventions (Elewke & Rodda, 2000; Young, 2002), as well as caregivers’ knowledge and beliefs (Chang, 2017; Decker et al, 2012; Li et al, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In several studies, the individual characteristics of each child have been reported to influence hearing and deaf caregivers’ decision-making in the initial period following diagnosis, including the age of the child at diagnosis and the subsequent amount of time available for hearing caregivers to make decisions (Scarinci et al, 2017; Young & Tattersall, 2007), the extent of a child’s hearing loss (Li et al, 2003, 2004), the success of amplification devices (Crowe, Fordham, et al, 2014; Crowe, McLeod, et al, 2014), and the age that the child received the hearing devices (Watson, Archbold, & Nikolopoulos, 2006). In addition, as most caregivers of children with hearing loss do not have hearing loss themselves, caregivers’ initial choice of communication method is largely influenced by the information accessed after the diagnosis of hearing loss (Christiansen & Leigh, 2004; Eleweke & Rodda, 2000; Scarinci et al, 2017; Young, 2002). As most hearing and Deaf caregivers receive advice on choosing their child’s method of communication from early intervention professionals (Chang, 2017; Crowe, McLeod, et al, 2014; Scarinci et al, 2017), the nature and scope of the information is influenced by the attitudes and views of the professionals themselves (Elewke & Rodda, 2000; Young, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, as most caregivers of children with hearing loss do not have hearing loss themselves, caregivers’ initial choice of communication method is largely influenced by the information accessed after the diagnosis of hearing loss (Christiansen & Leigh, 2004; Eleweke & Rodda, 2000; Scarinci et al, 2017; Young, 2002). As most hearing and Deaf caregivers receive advice on choosing their child’s method of communication from early intervention professionals (Chang, 2017; Crowe, McLeod, et al, 2014; Scarinci et al, 2017), the nature and scope of the information is influenced by the attitudes and views of the professionals themselves (Elewke & Rodda, 2000; Young, 2002). However, both hearing and Deaf caregivers also receive information from a range of other sources, including family and friends, as well as caregivers’ own independent research, online sources, and experiences with other children and adults with hearing loss (Chang, 2017; Christiansen & Leigh, 2004; Crowe, Fordham, et al, 2014; Porter & Edirippulige, 2007; Scarinci et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors influencing caregiver decision making to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss

Scarinci

Gehrke

Ching

et al. 2018

Deafness & Education International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The communication journey of a child with hearing loss is often a complex, interwoven process in which the child’s use of language or method of communication may change numerous times. As there has been limited research exploring the caregiver decision making process behind making such changes, this qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore the factors which influence the caregiver decision making process to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss. Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with seven caregivers of children with hearing loss in Australia. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes which influenced caregiver decisions regarding changes to their child’s method of communication, including: (1) family characteristics; (2) family access to information; (3) family strengths; (4) family beliefs; and (5) family-centered practice. The overall finding that the family unit is at the core of decision-making has important clinical implications regarding early intervention professionals’ provision of family-centered services when working with the families of children with hearing loss.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors influencing caregiver decision making to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss

Scarinci

Gehrke

Ching

et al. 2018

Deafness & Education International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A child born in the hospital may return in a few months to a hospital and be diagnosed as HI having lost precious early intervention period. 20 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospital and health administrator level barriers and priorities for National Neonatal Hearing Screening in Pakistan: A thematic analysis

Mumtaz

Saqulain²

2020

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To investigate the Barriers and Priorities accorded by hospital and health administrators to neo-natal hearing screening. Methods: This qualitative exploratory descriptive study employing purposive sampling technique was conducted in Islamabad, over a period of 18 months from 1st August 2015 to 31st January 2017. Sample included the stakeholders i.e., Heads of public sector hospitals of Islamabad including Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Capital Hospital, and Federal Government Services Hospital, Islamabad. Study included in depth interviews using a self-structured interview guide and audio recording. Recorded data was transcribed followed by thematic analyses which was manually drawn and verified. Results: The Outcomes from thematic analysis were drawn as Planning, Essential requirements for NNHS, High risk screening, education, Existence of skilled maternal & newborn health workers. Hearing screening equipment//facility instrumentation, Logistic support, Health ministry support and Financial cover are also significant outcomes. Lack of awareness in the public and professionals regarding the importance of early identification of HI, poor health infrastructure, burden on tertiary care and lack of referral top the list of barriers to initiation of NNHS program at hospital administrative level. Conclusion: The Barriers to NNHS identified at Hospital and Health care administrator level include lack of awareness, poor health infrastructure, burden on tertiary care and lack of referrals. Inherent barriers to NNHS cover the spectrum of lack of liaison/ linkages between obstetrics and other departments, deliveries at homes especially in rural areas, poor follow-up, scarcity of technical and adequately trained manpower. Intangible barriers to NNHS comprise lack of health care information system, attitudinal barriers, inadequate fiscal resources, and lack of integrated approach at intra departmental levels. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.5.1965 How to cite this:Mumtaz N, Saqulain G. Hospital and health administrator level barriers and priorities for National Neonatal Hearing Screening in Pakistan: A thematic analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(5):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.5.1965 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Parenting Deaf Children: Exploring Relationships Between Resolution of Diagnosis, Parenting Styles and Morale, and Perceived Child Vulnerability

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Raising a deaf child can have significant impacts on parents’ wellbeing, their relationship with the deaf child, and their ability to parent effectively. Using an online survey, this study explored two questions: First, to examine whether hearing parents treat and perceive their deaf and hearing children differently while controlling for parent characteristics (including resolution of diagnosis), specifically in terms of parenting styles and perceived vulnerability. Second, whether hearing parents’ ability to resolve their feelings about their child’s hearing loss diagnosis was related to their parenting morale, and whether they perceived their deaf child as vulnerable. A total of 84 parents with a deaf child aged 5–12 years completed the survey, with 32 of those also reported about a second child without hearing loss in the same age range. They were asked to answer questions from the Reaction to Diagnosis Interview, and to complete several questionnaires addressing parenting morale, child vulnerability, and parenting styles. Findings suggest that unresolved feelings of diagnosis were linked to lower parenting morale and greater perception of child vulnerability. Sibling comparisons indicated that parents also reported a higher perceived child vulnerability score for the deaf child compared to the hearing sibling. No sibling differences were found regarding parenting styles. These findings suggest that the experience of having a deaf child can have a negative impact on hearing parents’ morale and perception of child vulnerability, particularly when parents remain unresolved about the diagnosis, highlighting the need for targeted supports and further research.

show abstract

The parents’ perspective of the early diagnostic period of their child with hearing loss: information and support

Abstract: The findings of this study give insight into the perspectives of caregivers who have a child diagnosed with hearing loss. The importance of providing timely information and personal/emotional support to caregivers cannot be underestimated.

Cited by 46 publications

References 44 publications

Factors influencing caregiver decision making to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss

Factors influencing caregiver decision making to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss

Hospital and health administrator level barriers and priorities for National Neonatal Hearing Screening in Pakistan: A thematic analysis

Parenting Deaf Children: Exploring Relationships Between Resolution of Diagnosis, Parenting Styles and Morale, and Perceived Child Vulnerability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About