Unilateral Multi-Channel Cochlear Implantation Results in Significant Improvement in Quality of Life

Chung, Janet; Chueng, Kristelle; Shipp, David; Friesen, Lendra; Chen, Joseph M.; Nedzelski, J; Lin, Vincent

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e3182536dc2

Cited by 40 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten studies reported on generic health utility metrics, which included the Short Form-36 (SF-36) [Chung et al, 2012;Damen et al, 2007;Mo et al, 2005], Ontario Health Utilities Index (HUI) Marks II and III [Damen et al, 2007;Faber and Grøntved, 2000;Klop et al, 2007Klop et al, , 2008Sparreboom et al, 2012], the EQ5D, the VAS from the EQ5D, the time trade-off technique (TTO), the Australian Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument [Hawthorne et al, 2004], the Hopkins Symptom Check List 25 (HSCL-25) [Mo et al, 2005], the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index [Rembar et al, 2009], and the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) [Lassaletta et al, 2006]. Although none of these measures are specific to hearing or the effects of CI, some do incorporate hearing ability as part of the measure, as discussed below.…”

Section: Generic Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To review evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) among children and adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Study Design: Narrative review. Methods: Publications related to quality of life (QoL) and costs of care in CI were acquired through searches in English-language databases. Studies were included if they had identified the HRQoL attainment, cost of care, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness associated with CI. Results: 57 studies were critically reviewed. The QoL outcome metrics used in these articles were divided into 2 categories - generic and condition specific. In studies investigating children, many reported no significant difference in QoL attainment between CI recipients and normal-hearing peers. In adults, significant improvements in QoL after implantation and higher QoL than in their nonimplanted (hearing-aided) peers were frequently reported. Studies involving an older adult cohort reported significant improvement in QoL after implantation, which was often independent of audiological performance. Overall, the calculated cost-utility ratios consistently met the threshold of cost acceptance, indicating acceptable values for expenditures on CI. Conclusions: Considerable work has been done on the QoL attainment and health economic implications of CI. Unilateral CI across all age groups leads to reported sustained benefits in the recipients' overall and disease-specific QoL. With increased cost associated with bilateral CI, further study is needed to characterize its costs and benefits with respect to the recipients' health, well-being, and contributions to society.

show abstract

Section: Generic Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The benefits of CI regarding auditory speech perception and the implanted person communication have been widely presented (3,4) . Thus, the focus of research in cochlear implants was naturally directed to other areas of research such as evaluating the impact of this device in people's lives, considering the self-esteem, daily activities and social functions, which account for the quality of life (5) . The contribution of studies of this nature is reflected along the CI in interdisciplinary teams, in order to present the results of this intervention on the quality of life of this device users measured methodologically.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WHOQOL-BREF is one of the most appropriate instruments to assess quality of life as it considers the subjectivity and the multidimensionality in people's lives (14) . Research shows that the cochlear implant (CI) has been an effective clinical resource to improve these individuals quality of life (QOL) (5,6) , in a study that assess a long-term QOL of 32 cochlear implant users with the instrument SF-36 before surgery, a year and 10 years after the CI (15) . These authors found statistically significant difference from preoperative to a year of use in three domains of the instrument (Vitality, Social Functioning, and Mental Health), from a year to 10 years in two domains (Physical aspects and Vitality) and from preoperative to 10 years of use in one domain (Pain).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualidade de vida em adultos usuários de implante coclear

Angelo

Moret

Costa

et al. 2016

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a qualidade de vida (QV) de adultos usuários de implante coclear (IC), comparando-a com a QV de adultos com audição normal, além de estudar a influência, na QV dos adultos usuários de IC, destas variáveis: nível socioeconômico, escolaridade, idade na avaliação, tempo de privação sensorial auditiva, tempo de uso do dispositivo e desempenho nos testes de percepção auditiva da fala. Desenho A QV foi avaliada segundo o questionário genérico de avaliação World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-bref). Amostra do estudo Setenta adultos usuários de IC formaram o grupo experimental (GE) e 50 adultos com audição normal fizeram parte do grupo controle (GC). Resultados O GE apresentou escores muito próximos à pontuação máxima que representa QV satisfatória para todos os domínios do questionário WHOQOL-bref e houve resultados semelhantes entre os GE e GC. Na avaliação, as variáveis idade, tempo de privação sensorial auditiva, tempo de uso do IC e desempenho em percepção auditiva da fala não influenciaram os resultados de QV de adultos usuários de IC. Conclusão Avaliar a QV deve ser uma preocupação das equipes interdisciplinares em IC para uma intervenção com um cuidado humanizado.

show abstract

“…Satisfaction surveys through questionnaires have been performed for evaluating these positive effects [50][51][52][53] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction of Children with Auditory Neuropathy and Cochlear Implant

Carvalho

Zago²,

Ramos³

et al. 2016

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:In auditory neuropathy (AN) a dyssynchrony in the nerve conduction of the auditory nerve fibers is observed. Typically, patients with AN exhibit moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss, and treatment using cochlear implants (CIs) or hearing aids should be performed as early as possible for a better hearing rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the satisfaction level of patients with AN spectrum disorder treated using CIs. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire was selected to evaluate 10 patients with AN treated using CIs. MATERIAL and METHODS:Clinical study of patients with AN spectrum disorder submitted to CI. A retrospective data analysis, genetic and clinical evaluation in a tertiary referral center was done. RESULTS:The means of the subscales for positive effects, services and costs, negative factors, and personal image were 6.15, 4.6, 3.26, and 3.33, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with AN treated using CIs consider themselves satisfied.

show abstract

Unilateral Multi-Channel Cochlear Implantation Results in Significant Improvement in Quality of Life

Cited by 40 publications

References 32 publications

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

Qualidade de vida em adultos usuários de implante coclear

Satisfaction of Children with Auditory Neuropathy and Cochlear Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About