Timing and Impact of Hearing Healthcare in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

Hixon, Brian; Chan, Stephen A.; Adkins, Margaret; Shinn, Jennifer B.; Bush, Matthew L.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001197

Cited by 58 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Raine et al (2016) proposed lack of awareness as an influencing factor for decision making, but the majority of participants of the present study appeared sufficiently informed to make decisions regarding their care. The results of this study both support and conflict the results of a study by Hixon et al (2016) demonstrating reduced uptake of CI with increasing geographic distance from a CI centre, with only one participant considering herself physically unable to travel to receive CI and therefore preventing her from pursuing it. In this study, travelling was considered a negative factor by nine participants, including both those who accepted and rejected CI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

Dillon¹,

Pryce

2019

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Our objective was to understand the factors that determine whether an adult who is eligible for cochlear implantation (CI) choose to take up or not take up the implant. Design: We conducted a qualitative in-depth interview study, informed by grounded theory methods of constant comparison to build a theory to describe why and how people decide to opt for CI or not. Study sample: Our samples were patients from an audiology service in England. Results: Our results describe the key factors in weighing up risks and benefits. These are influenced by living context and support, information and social identity. We identify the key features that impact decision making for adults eligible for cochlear implants. The importance of the patient lifeworld view is discussed. Conclusions: This qualitative study provides the first in depth examination of how and why patients do and do not take up the offer of cochlear implants. It highlights the complex and iterative nature of this decision making and the individualised risks that trade off benefits of implantation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

Dillon¹,

Pryce

2019

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results demonstrate that cochlear implantation can successfully and safely be realized in a rural setting if several prerequisites are fulfilled. Especially older patients who otherwise would have difficulties to get access to this effective method of hearing rehabilitation in limited centers benefit from this procedure [8] [9] [10].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing a Cochlear Implant Program in a Rural Area of Germany with Special Respect to Older Patients

Issing¹

2018

IJOHNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aimed to demonstrate the patient outcomes after cochlear implantation in a rural area of Germany with special respect to older patients. Study Design: Retrospective Study. Setting: ENT-Department of Bad Hersfeld as an academic teaching hospital of the Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen. This is located in a rural county in Germany. Patients: A consecutive series of 217 patients implanted between 2003 and 2017. Intervention: Patients were implanted with different cochlear implant devices by the same surgeon in a standard procedure. In cases of chronic otitis media a middle ear obliteration was performed 6 months prior to cochlear implantation. Main Outcome Measures: Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 was 18 to 65 years of age and group 2 was older than 65 years. Pre-and postoperative hearing and speech understanding evaluated by the Freiburg monosyllable word test and the HSM-sentence test in the group of patients. Results: The mean preoperative speech understanding of group 1 was 0.5% for monosyllables at 60 dB and 2.7% at 80 dB. Group 2 showed similar results with 0.2% and 1.2%. In the HSM-test, group 1 had a speech understanding of 2.6% and group 2 of 3.2%. No statistically significant difference could be found between both groups. After cochlear implantation mean speech understanding at 60 dB increased in group 1 to 53.2% and 65.1% at 80 dB respectively. Group 2 had an improvement to 51.8% at 60 dB and 68.3% and 80 dB. The results in the HSM-sentence test were 77.8% in group 1 and 83.7% in group 2 (p = 0.47). Both groups had a significant increase in speech understanding concerning both tests after cochlear implantation (p = 0.0001) whereas we could not confirm any significant difference between the younger and older CI-recipients in the monosyllable word test. During the observation period no major complications had to be observed. Conclusion: Our data suggest that cochlear implantation in a rural area of Germany is feasible without increased

show abstract

“…Our study was conducted in Indiana, where around 14% and 24% of the population resided in the rural counties and semi-rural counties according the 2010 census [ 25 ]. In general, residents of rural counties across the United States have limited access to hearing healthcare facilities, and hearing loss is a neglected public health problem in these economically disadvantaged populations [ 26 ]. Compared to urban populations their rural counterparts have lower education and household income and greater travel distance to hearing healthcare center creating delays in treatment and resulting in significant hearing health disparities [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of a low-cost hearing screening in rural Indiana

Khan¹,

Bielko²,

Barnes³

et al. 2017

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHearing loss remains a neglected public health issue in the rural and agricultural communities in the United States and therefore, promotion of a low-cost hearing screening may be important for these underserved populations. The major objectives of our study were to assess feasibility of a low-cost telephone-administered hearing test in rural Indiana and to identify the challenges, barriers and viable implementation strategies associated with this test. Also, we evaluated whether a focus group session could change the hearing health attitude of rural residents.MethodsWe recruited 126 adults from six rural Indiana counties who participated in study activities in the following order: 1) a pre-focus group demographic, knowledge and attitude survey, 2) a focus group for discussing the feasibility of a telephone-administered hearing screening, 3) a post focus group attitude survey and 4) hearing was screened using an audiometer and self-assessment scale. These activities generated both qualitative and quantitative data, which were subsequently analyzed.ResultsHearing impairment was perceived as an important public health issue. Many participants expressed interests to try the low-cost National Hearing Test (NHT). However, participants recommended NHT to be facilitated by community organizations to provide access to landline phones. The focus group turned out to be an excellent awareness building activity producing significant improvement in hearing health attitudes. Comparison of self and audiometric evaluations indicated underestimation of hearing handicap in our rural study population.ConclusionsThe study results underscore the urgent need for an effective strategy to promote low-cost hearing screening in rural US communities.

show abstract

Timing and Impact of Hearing Healthcare in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

Cited by 58 publications

References 8 publications

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

Establishing a Cochlear Implant Program in a Rural Area of Germany with Special Respect to Older Patients

Feasibility of a low-cost hearing screening in rural Indiana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About